HomeMy Public PortalAbout11 November 1, 1995 Amended Budget & FinanceAMENDED AGENDA - Item #6E Added 040137 r�
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
BUDGET & FINANCE COMMITTEE
(COMMISSIONERS RUSS BEIRICH, BOB BUSTER,
KAY CENICEROS, SYBIL JAFFY)
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1995
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
3560 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 100
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS.
4. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS.
5. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS/FINANCIAL ITEMS.
5A. CVAG Response to Ernst & Young "Financial and Project Planning Assessment".
Overview
Staff is recommending that the Commission: 1) Approve the CVAG responses ONE
through TWENTY-FIVE to Ernst and Young recommendations which are mutually
agreeable to CVAG and RCTC staff; 2) should review the INTERPRETATION OF
MEASURE "A" BALLOT WORDING viewpoints and determine if it agrees with the
interpretation advocated by the CVAG Executive Committee or the RCTC Executive
Director. The Commission should confer with its Legal Counsel in reviewing the
alternative viewpoints; and, 3) defer consideration of CVAG responses TWENTY-SIX
and TWENTY-SEVEN pending interpretation of Measure "A" ballot wording.
5B. RCTC Programming and Funding Guide.
Overview
Staff is recommending that the Budget and Finance Committee discuss Proposed
Policies 2.2 and 12.5, and that since there in no pressing reason to approve the
Revised Programming and Funding Guide prior to the December Commission meeting,
that approval of the Guide should be done at one time if at all possible, and
rescheduled to the December Commission meeting in order for the local agencies and
staff to complete their work on possible alternatives to Proposed Policies 2.2 and 12.5.
Page 2
Budget/Finance Committee Meeting Agenda
November 1, 1995
5C. AMPG Recommendations Regarding RCTC Organizational Structure.
Overview
The Executive Director is recommending that the Commission: 1) Approve the AMPG
recommendations; and 2) authorize reclassification of the Account Clerk to Senior
Bookkeeper and amend the budget to transfer $2,020 from Contingencies to Salaries
and Fringe Benefits.
5D. Unaudited Financial Information for the Annual Newspaper Report.
Overview
Staff is recommending that the Commission authorize the Executive Director to include
the attached unaudited financial information in the annual newspaper report to the
public.
5E. Monthly Cost and Schedule Reports.
Overview
The attached material depicts the current costs and schedule status of contracts
reported by routes, commitments, and cooperative agreements executed by the
Commission. For each contract and agreement, the report lists the authorized value
approved by the Commission, percentage of contract amount expended to date, and
the project expenditures by route with status for the month ending September 30,
1995. This item is for receive and file.
6. HIGHWAYS/LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS.
6A. CECERT Modeling Work - HOV Lanes.
Overview
CECERT is preparing a scope of work and cost to perform the work needed in a manner
that the results can be integrated into the SCAG forecasting and conformity models.
Staff expects the information to be available for presentation at the Budget and
Finance Committee meeting.
6B. Route 79 (Lambs Canyon) Status Report.
Overview
The Measure A funded construction to widen Route 79 from two lanes to four lanes
through the Lambs Canyon Area is progressing rapidly. The Lambs Canyon widening
is a major construction project requiring extensive earthwork and grading through some
very steep canyon areas. Staff will provide an oral report and slides to show the
progress made to date on the Route 79 widening and Gilman Springs Grade Separation
projects.
Page 3
Budget/Finance Committee Meeting Agenda
November 1, 1995
6C. Yuma Interchange Construction Cooperative Agreement.
Overview
Staff is meeting with the City of Norco on October 31, 1995 to discuss the necessary
Construction Agreement to be entered into between the City and Caltrans. The City
staff has inquired about the possibility of RCTC managing construction, which may
change the Construction Agreement responsible local agency. Staff will present the
results of those discussions for RCTC consideration at the meeting.
6D. FY 1996-2000 Measure "A "Five Year Capita/ Improvement Program for Local Streets
and Roads.
Overview
The Measure "A" Ordinance requires each recipient of streets and roads monies to
annually provide to the Commission a five year plan of how those funds are to be
expended in order to receive disbursements for local streets and roads. Any
subsequent additions, deletions, or substitutions to the approved Plan must also be
approved by the Commission. The City of Beaumont has submitted their plan and
supporting documentation and the City of Lake Elsinore has amended their previously
approved Plan.
6E. Route 79 Surface Transportation Funding Trade Request.
Overview
Staff is recommending that the Commission: 1) Amend the Measure A Budget to
increase the appropriation for the Galena Interchange by $500,000 (i.e., up from $1.5
million to $2 million of the total $5 million Measure A program commitment); 2)
Conditionally exchange $2 million of Measure A funding from the Galena Interchange
project to the Route 79 project for a like amount of STP; the condition relates to a full
funding agreement for the entire Route 79 project by February 1, 1996; 3) exchange
$905,000 from local exchange account number 836 for the Route 79 project for a like
amount of STP; this STP funding would be subject to reprogramming at the
Commission's discretion at a future date; and, 4) that approval of these items are
further conditional upon a condition that the cost of interest on commercial paper for
Measure A funds shall be included as a cost of the Route 79 project and reimbursed
to RCTC.
7. TRANSIT/RIDESHARE/PARK-N-RIDE/BICYCLE.
7A. Transit Funding Shortfall -Results of Joint RCTC/RTA Meeting.
Overview
On Wednesday, October 18, 1995, representatives from the RCTC and RTA Board of
Directors met to consider bus and rail funding needs and projected transit funding
shortfalls. Staff provided a review of the transit funding situation as well as a
compromise document that was prepared jointly by RCTC and RTA staff which lays out
principles which could be a basis for agreement on how funding would be allocated in
future years. Staff is recommending approval of the funding principles.
Page 4
Budget/Finance Committee Meeting Agenda
November 1, 1995
•
7B. FY 1996-97 Transit Capital Improvement Program.
Overview
Annually, transit capital projects are solicited by Caltrans for consideration in the
Transit Capital Improvement (TCI) Program. Projects were solicited county wide and
this item is to establish priorities and adopt the required Fixed Guideway Financial Plan
for the program of projects.
8. SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES (SAFE)/INTELLIGENTTRANSPORTATION
SYSTEMS STRATEGIC DEPLOYMENT PLAN (IVHS).
8A. Potential Supplemental Funds for the Inland Empire Intelligent Transportation Systems
Strategic Planning Proiect.
Overview
Caltrans has informed staff of the potential availability of additional ITS planning funds.
Staff seeks RCTC authorization to secure additional funds for the purpose of
developing an effective public outreach program for the ITS Strategic Planning process.
9. COMMUTER RAIL.
9A. Financial P/an of Riverside -Downtown Station Expansion.
Overview
Staff is recommending that the Commission approve the financial plan for constructing
storage facilities and improvements to the Riverside -Downtown Station.
9B. 24 -Hour Security at La Sierra & West Corona Stations.
Overview
Staff is recommending that the Commission approve temporary, 24 -hour security
service at both the La Sierra and West Corona Rail Stations.
10. ADJOURNMENT.
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
BUDGET & FINANCE COMMITTEE
(COMMISSIONERS RUSS BEIRICH, BOB BUSTER,
KAY CENICEROS, SYBIL JAFFY)
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1995
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
3560 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 100
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS.
4. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS.
5. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS/FINANCIAL ITEMS.
5A. CVAG Response to Ernst & Young "Financial and Project Planning Assessment". -
Overview
Staff is recommending that the Commission: 1) Approve the CVAG responses ONE
through TWENTY-FIVE to Ernst and Young recommendations which are mutually
agreeable to CVAG and RCTC staff; 2) should review the INTERPRETATION OF
MEASURE "A" BALLOT WORDING viewpoints and determine if it agrees with the
interpretation advocated by the CVAG Executive Committee or the RCTC Executive
Director. The Commission should confer with its Legal Counsel in reviewing the
alternative viewpoints; and, 3) defer consideration of CVAG responses TWENTY-SIX
and TWENTY-SEVEN pending interpretation of Measure "A" ballot wording.
5B. RCTC Programming and Funding Guide.
Overview
Staff is recommending that the Budget and Finance Committee discuss Proposed
Policies 2.2 and 12.5, and that since there in no pressing reason to approve the
Revised Programming and Funding Guide prior to the December Commission meeting,
that approval of the Guide should be done at one time if at all possible, and
rescheduled to the December Commission meeting in order for the local agencies and
staff to complete their work on possible alternatives to Proposed Policies 2.2 and 12.5.
Page 2
Budget/Finance Committee Meeting Agenda
November 1, 1995
5C. AMPG Recommendations Regarding RCTC Organizational Structure.
Overview
The Executive Director is recommending that the Commission: 1) Approve the AMPG
recommendations; and 2) authorize reclassification of the Account Clerk to Senior
Bookkeeper and amend the budget to transfer $2,020 from Contingencies to Salaries
and Fringe Benefits.
5D. Unaudited Financial Information for the Annual Newspaper Report.
Overview
Staff is recommending that the Commission authorize the Executive Director to include
the attached unaudited financial information in the annual newspaper report to the
public.
5E. Monthly Cost and Schedule Reports.
Overview
The attached material depicts the current costs and schedule status of contracts
reported by routes, commitments, and cooperative agreements executed by the
Commission. For each contract and agreement, the report lists the authorized value
approved by the Commission, percentage of contract amount expended to date, and
the project expenditures by route with status for the month ending September 30,
1995. This item is for receive and file.
6. HIGHWAYS/LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS.
6A. CECERT Modeling Work - HOV Lanes.
Overview
CECERT is preparing a scope of work and cost to perform the work needed in a manner
that the results can be integrated into the SCAG forecasting and conformity models.
Staff expects the information to be available for presentation at the Budget and
Finance Committee meeting.
6B. Route 79 (Lambs Canyon) Status Report.
Overview
The Measure A funded construction to widen Route 79 from two lanes to four lanes
through the Lambs Canyon Area is progressing rapidly. The Lambs Canyon widening
is a major construction project requiring extensive earthwork and grading through some
very steep canyon areas. Staff will provide an oral report and slides to show the
progress made to date on the Route 79 widening and Gilman Springs Grade Separation
projects.
a
•
•
Page 3
Budget/Finance Committee Meeting Agenda
November 1, 1995
6C. Yuma Interchange Construction Cooperative Agreement.
Overview
Staff is meeting with the City of Norco on October 31, 1995 to discuss the necessary
Construction Agreement to be entered into between the City and Caltrans. The City
staff has inquired about the possibility of RCTC managing construction, which may
change the Construction Agreement responsible local agency. Staff will present the
results of those discussions for RCTC consideration at the meeting.
6D. FY 1996-2000 Measure "A "Five Year Capita/ Improvement Program for Local Streets
and Roads.
Overview
The Measure "A" Ordinance requires each recipient of streets and roads monies to
annually provide to the Commission a five year plan of how those funds are to be
expended in order to receive disbursements for local streets and roads. Any
subsequent additions, deletions, or substitutions to the approved Plan must also be
approved by the Commission. The City of Beaumont has submitted their plan and
supporting documentation and the City of Lake Elsinore has amended their previously
approved Plan.
7. TRANSIT/RIDESHARE/PARK-N-RIDE/BICYCLE.
7A. Transit Funding Shortfall -Results of Joint RCTC/RTA Meeting.
Overview
On Wednesday, October 18, 1995, representatives from the RCTC and RTA Board of
Directors met to consider bus and rail funding needs and projected transit funding
shortfalls. Staff provided a review of the transit funding situation as well as a
compromise document that was prepared jointly by RCTC and RTA staff which lays out
principles which could be a basis for agreement on how funding would be allocated in
future years. Staff is recommending approval of the funding principles.
7B. FY 1996-97 Transit Capita/ Improvement Program.
Overview
Annually, transit capital projects are solicited by Caltrans for consideration in the
Transit Capital Improvement (TCI) Program. Projects were solicited county wide and
this item is to establish priorities and adopt the required Fixed Guideway Financial Plan
for the program of projects.
Page 4
Budget/Finance Committee Meeting Agenda
November 1, 1995
8. SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES(SA FEI/INTELLIGENTTRANSPORTATION
SYSTEMS STRATEGIC DEPLOYMENT PLAN (IVHS).
8A. Potential Supplemental Funds for the Inland Empire Intelligent Transportation Systems
Strategic Planning Project.
Overview
Caltrans has informed staff of the potential availability of additional ITS planning funds.
Staff seeks RCTC authorization to secure additional funds for the purpose of
developing an effective public outreach program for the ITS Strategic Planning process.
9. COMMUTER RAIL.
9A. Financial Plan of Riverside -Downtown Station Expansion.
Overview
Staff is recommending that the Commission approve the financial plan for constructing
storage facilities and improvements to the Riverside -Downtown Station.
9B. 24 -Hour Security at La Sierra & West Corona Stations.
Overview
Staff is recommending that the Commission approve temporary, 24 -hour security
service at both the La Sierra and West Corona Rail Stations.
10. ADJOURNMENT.
"
"
R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
9 5 - 0 9
B U D G E T A N D F I N A N C E C O M M I T T E E
M I N U T E S
S e p t e m b e r 6 , 1 9 9 5
1 . C A L L T O O R D E R .
T h e m e e t i n g o f t h e B u d g e t a n d F i n a n c e C o m m i t t e e w a s c a l l e d t o o r d e r b y R u s s e l l B e i r i c h a t
1 : 3 5 p . m . a t t h e R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n , 3 5 6 0 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e , S u i t e
1 0 0 , R i v e r s i d e , C a l i f o r n i a .
2 . A P P R O V A L O F M I N U T E S .
M / S / C t o a p p r o v e t h e m i n u t e s o f t h e A u g u s t 2 , 1 9 9 5 B u d g e t a n d F i n a n c e C o m m i t t e e m e e t i n g
a s p r e s e n t e d .
3 . P U B L I C C O M M E N T S .
C o r k y L a r s o n , C V A G E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r i n f o r m e d t h e B u d g e t / F i n a n c e C o m m i t t e e t h a t C V A G
w i l l b e a d d r e s s i n g a n d m a k i n g a f o r m a l p r e s e n t a t i o n o n t h e 1 9 9 0 E r n s t a n d Y o u n g R e p o r t a t
t h e O c t o b e r m e e t i n g . S h e p o i n t e d o u t i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s b e t w e e n P a g e 1 1 o f t h e r e p o r t a n d t h e
M e a s u r e E x p e n d i t u r e P l a n r e l a t i n g t o u s e o f b o n d f u n d s f o r s p e c i f i e d p r o j e c t s .
C o m m i s s i o n e r R u s s B e i r i c h a s k e d w h e t h e r t h i s i s s u e w i l l b e t h r o u g h t h e C V A G E x e c u t i v e
C o m m i t t e e b e f o r e t h e B u d g e t / F i n a n c e C o m m i t t e e a n d C o r k y L a r s o n r e s p o n d e d t h a t C V A G T A C
a n d E x e c u t i v e C o m m i t t e e s w i l l f i r s t d i s c u s s i t b e f o r e R C T C ' s B u d g e t a n d F i n a n c e C o m m i t t e e .
C o m m i s s i o n e r K a y C e n i c e r o s f e l t t h i s m a y b e m o r e o f a p o l i c y i s s u e a n d s u g g e s t e d t h a t i t
w o u l d b e h e l p f u l t o h a v e t h e m i n u t e s f r o m t h e e x t e n s i v e d i s c u s s i o n h e l d l a s t y e a r o n t h i s i s s u e .
4 . A D D I T I O N S / D E L E T I O N S .
T h e r e w e r e n o a d d i t i o n s / d e l e t i o n s .
5 . A D M I N I S T R A T I V E I T E M S / F I N A N C I A L I T E M S .
5 A . / n v e s t m e n t P o l i c i e s .
M / S / C t h a t t h e C o m m i s s i o n a p p r o v e t h e p r o p o s e d I n v e s t m e n t P o l i c y a s i n c o r p o r a t e d
i n R e s o l u t i o n N o . 9 5 - 0 1 0 " R e s o l u t i o n o f t h e R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n
C o m m i s s i o n E s t a b l i s h i n g I n v e s t m e n t P o l i c y f o r C o m m i s s i o n F u n d s . "
5 B . C o u n t y o f R i v e r s i d e I n v e s t m e n t P o r t f o l i o R e p o r t s .
M / S / C t h a t t h e C o m m i s s i o n r e c e i v e a n d f i l e .
Page 2
B/F Committee Meeting Minutes
September 6, 1995
•
5C. Request For Proposal For Federal Lobbyist Services.
M/S/C that the Commission: 1) Extend the contract with David Turch to represent the
Commission to advocate inclusion of Coachella Valley rail demonstration projects
through AMTRAK reauthorization and appropriation legislation through the balance of
the calendar year; authorize a budget transfer of $6,000 from Measure A
Contingencies to Legislative Advocate; and, 2) extend the contract with Cliff Madison
to represent the Commission to advocate priority projects for funding earmarks through
NHS designation and/or ISTEA reauthorization legislation through the balance of the
fiscal year; authorize a budget transfer of $18,000 from Measure A Contingencies to
Legislative Advocate.
5D. Quarterly Financial and Cost & Schedule Reports.
M/S/C that the Commission receive and file.
6. SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES (SAFE).
6A. Consultant Selection - Inland Empire Intelligent Transportation Systems Strategic Plan.
M/S/C that the Commission: 1) Approve, contingent upon an affirmative finding of
meeting RCTC's DBE goal of 18.5% for the project and obtaining Caltrans approval of
a pre -award audit of JHK, the selection of the JHK team to develop the Inland Empire
Intelligent Transportation Systems Strategic Plan; and, 2) authorize the Executive
Director to execute a contract with JHK to develop the Inland Empire Intelligent
Transportation Systems Strategic Plan in the amount of $451,894.76 and approve
$23,105.24 as contingency of the project. This action is subject to the DBE and pre -
award audit contingencies identified above.
6B. Lease/Purchase of Radio Communication Equipment for Freewav Service Patrol Program
and Termination of Lease Agreement.
M/S/C that the Commission: 1) Authorize the Executive Director to enter into a
least/purchase agreement with Bear Communications, subject to Legal Counsel review,
for radio communications equipment for the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol
program; and, 2) authorize the Executive Director to give Riverside Communications
thirty days' notice to terminate the lease.
7. HIGHWAYS/LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS.
7A. Contract Amendment #2 for Agreement No. RO-9219 with NBS Lowry - Design
Services on a Route 111 Proiect at Gene Autry Trail in the City of Palm Springs.
M/S/C that the Commission approve Amendment #2 to Agreement RO-9219 with NBS
Lowry for a base amendment amount of $61,475.00 with an additional extra work
amount of $6,147.50 for unforeseen extra work to be authorized by the Executive
Director.
•
•
Page 3
B/F Committee Meeting Minutes
September 6, 1995
•
8. TRANSIT/RIDESHARE/PARK-N-RIDE/BICYCLE.
8A. Request from RTA to Reprogram Local Transportation Funds.
M/S/C that the Commission consider the request from Riverside Transit Agency to: 1)
Approve transfer of $68,000 in CMAQ funds from the Downtown Trolley project to the
Durahart Annex project; and, 2) reprogram $8,393.51 in local transportation capital
funds to the Durahart Annex project.
8B. Additional Allocation of SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Funds.
M/S/C that the Commission allocate the unclaimed $80,000 of FY 1992-93 Bicycle and
Pedestrian Facilities funds to finance the balance of the County of Riverside's FY 1995-
96 SB 821 Center Street Sidewalk project with the remaining portion of the unclaimed
funds, $46,753 to fund a portion of the City of Indio's FY 1995-96 SB 821 Avenue
44 project.
•
•
8C. Destination Based Ridesharinq Demonstration Project Bridge Funding Request.
M/S/C that the Commission approve the expenditure of up to $75,000 in Measure A
Commuter Assistance Program carry-over funds to provide initial funding for the
implementation of a destination based rideshare demonstration project approved and
funded by SCAG.
8D. FY 95/97 Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee Request for
Proposals.
The Budget/Finance Committee made no recommendation.
8E. Status Report on Short -Range Transit Plan; Transit Funding Shortfalls.
M/S/C that the Commission: 1) Approve the Attachment 2 as the estimate of future
transit operation and capital revenues; 2) review Attachments 3 and 4 for joint
consideration by RCTC and RTA, and affected local governmental jurisdictions along
the San Jacinto rail line; 3) request a joint meeting with the RTA to review this
information or guidance to RCTC in "Forecasting" and "Priority Setting" as the
necessary initial steps of the SRTP update process.
9. ADJOURNMENT.
:jw
There being no further business to come before the Budget and Finance Committee, the
meeting was adjourned at 2:20 p.m.
espectfully submitted,
aty en er
Clerk of the Board
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: November 1, 1995
TO: Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: CVAG Response to Ernst & Young "Financial and Project Planning
Assessment"
The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and the Riverside County
Transportation Commission (RCTC) jointly funded a CVAG administered contract with
Ernst & Young to assess the financial and project planning process for the CVAG
regional arterial program. The report was completed in May 1995, and since that time
CVAG has been methodically reviewing the individual recommendations and acting on
responses.
A report documenting CVAG's responses were distributed to the Budget and Finance
Committee during their October 6th meeting. Chairman Clifford determined that the
report and RCTC discussion should be deferred to the November 8, 1995 meeting.
CVAG's report documenting responses is attached. Included as attachments to
CVAG's report are (1) Measure A Ballot language, Ordinance No. 88-1, and voter
approved Expenditure Plan; (2) a September 26, 1994 opinion from RCTC Counsel
regarding TUMF collection in the Coachella Valley; and the May 1995 EY report.
CVAG and RCTC staff have met to review those responses. RCTC staff have rno
objections to CVAG responses to issues ONE through TWENTY-FIVE. However, I
cannot support CVAG responses TWENTY-SIX (Pay interest portion of debt from
Measure "A") or TWENTY-SEVEN (Match TUMF at the project expenditure level).
Both CVAG and RCTC staff acknowledge that my concerns regarding the TWENTY-
SIX and TWENTY-SEVEN above may be moot in the event the Commission agrees
with CVAG's "INTERPRETATION OF MEASURE "A" BALLOT WORDING" (See page
29 of CVAG report).
The major issue for discussion during the November 8, 1995 meeting should be to
address "INTERPRETATION OF MEASURE "A" BALLOT WORDING". The major
divergent viewpoints are as follows:
1. CVAG's Executive Committee reviewed the Measure "A" ballot working; "The
Uniform Traffic Mitigation Fee schedule shall be established in order to generate
at least the equivalent of Measure "A" funding toward the regional arterial
system." CVAG emphasizes that this wording says "establish", not "establish
F:\USERS\PREPRINT\NOV.95\CVAGEYRE.JR
Page 2
and maintain." CVAG indicates that they established a TUMF Schedule,
therefore, CVAG contends it has fulfilled its ballot obligation.
CVAG's report references the September 26, 1994 RCTC Counsel's opinion to
support its interpretation.
2. I believe that this interpretation takes the word "establish" out of context. It
might be argued that the more operative part of the Measure "A" wording
might be "..in order to generate at least the equivalent of Measure "A" funding
toward the regional arterial system...." - or at least an equal matching of
Measure "A" and TUMF funds. I believe that a full reading of RCTC Counsel's
opinion (September 26, 1994) to the question "Does the transportation
improvement plan of Measure "A" require uniform transportation mitigation fee
(TUMF) collections to be at least equal to Measure "A" sales tax revenues
collected for the Coachella Valley Regional Arterial Program?" should lead the
Commission to conclude that a one-time act of "establishing" a TUMF fee
(which has proven to be only about 65% of Measure "A" regional arterial
funding) does not meet the intent of Measure "A" obligation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission:
1) Approve the CVAG responses ONE through TWENTY-FIVE to Ernst and Young
recommendations which are mutually agreeable to CVAG and RCTC staff.
2) Should review the INTERPRETATION OF MEASURE "A" BALLOT WORDING
viewpoints and determine if it agrees with the interpretation advocated by the
CVAG Executive Committee or the RCTC Executive Director. The Commission
should confer with its Legal Counsel in reviewing the alternative viewpoints.
3) Defer consideration of CVAG responses TWENTY-SIX and TWENTY-SEVEN
pending interpretation of Measure "A" ballot wording.
:jw
Attachment
F:\USERS\PREPRINT\NOV.95\CVAGEYRE.JR
4
•
•
•
2.2 THE FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Local agencies are required to submit Five Year Capital Improvement Plans
(CIPs) to the RCTC in order to qualify for Measure A Streets and Roads funds.
In order to be eligible to receive monthly disbursements of funding beginning
at the start of a fiscal year, agencies are required to submit their CIPs to the
RCTC no later than May 31." The County and most cities have in the past qualified for
participation in the Measure A streets and roads program.
Cities not participating in the Coachella Valley Association of Government's
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) programu do not qualify to receive
Measure A Streets and Roads allocations.16
The Commission currently requires cities and the County to submit fiveear
expenditure plans in which y
specific projects are identified in year 1. In years 2
through 5, the remaining projects are identified; but not by fiscal year.
The Commission le responsible for making sure that Measure A Local Streets and
Roads funds are used in a timely manner. Last year, the Commission's staffproposed
a revision to the .five year expenditure plan requirement in which more detailed
information Would be provided for years two through five, ie. each project would be
assigned a specific year. Projects with multi year funding would show the amount of
work to be accomplished in each year, including
enviro� right of way acquisition, design, and construction. - minaty engineering,
This proposal was not approved, but should be reconsidered. Local agencies with any
comments regarding this change, or recommending alternatives to this proposal should
provide their comments to the Commission. -
14
MEASURE A RECIPIENT POLICIES, Op. Cit.
15 The TUMF is a development impact assessment which
provides funding for transportation improvements dictated
by the demands of new development. The assessment is
based on the number of vehicle trips that new development
or site improvements will generate. The fee is
uniformally applied across all participating
jurisdictions within the Coachella Valley. It is
collected by the local jurisdictions and then is
transferred to CVAG for allocation into a Regional
Arterial Program account. Coachella Valley Association
of Governments, TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE
REPORT, January 1990
16 Measure A Maintenance of Effort Guidelines,
Op. Cit.
53.
roads or specialized Minsk monies. As these funds are ,ewicte4 the related interest
earned should be restricted as required by governmental regulations and oil.
transportation funding including the T nznsportation Ace"
Annual budget reeding the local government or agency's anticipated receipts and
expenditures should be prepared and submitted to the Commission upon approval by
the governing board. The data contained in the capital improvement plans submitted
to the Commission should be included in the recipient's budgets. These budgets allow
for proper evaluation by the Commission of recipient's activities on an annual basis."
12.3 ACCUMULATED DEFICITS
Accumulated funding source deficits are the responsibility of the local jurisdiction. The
RCTC will consider allocating additional funds for such deficits when justifiable on a
case -by -case basis.91
12.4 BUDGET VARIANCES
Significant budget variances should be avoided. All local jurisdictions are required to
compare the budget to actual results and mare mid year revisions as needed .°
12.5 UNEXPENDED MONIES
There is currently a problem with agencies having balances of unexpended Measure
A funds in amounts which are more than necessary for existing projects. The following
is what the Commission proposed last year to put in the Funding Guide.
An accumulation of Measure A funds allocated by the RCTC, which in the opinion of
the RCTC appears to be excessive (i.e., more than what is needed for two years of an
approved five year Capital Improvement Program) will result in Commission action. The
RCTC will hold in reserve any future disbursements until the excess funds have been
reduced to a level needed to support existing project requirements.93
Local agencies have found it difficult to obligate these funds in a timely manner. The
Commission is concerned with the status of agency -held unobligated Measure A funds
and seeks guidance from interested agencies on how to resolve the problem.
RCTC, POLICIES RELATING TO MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND
ROADS MONIES, MAY 8, 1991
90 Ibid.
91 Ibid.
42 Ibid.
Ibid.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: November 1, 1995
TO: Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT: RCTC Programming and Funding Guide
Copies of the RCTC Revised Program and Funding Guide were mailed to the cities, the county, and
other interested agencies for review and comment. Copies of the comments received were provided
to the Commission at the September meeting. The RCTC Technical Advisory Committee will discuss
the Revised Guide at their meeting on Monday, October 30, and provide recommendations to the
Commission. Two proposed policies have caused considerable concern to staff from the local
agencies: 2.2 FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN; and, 12.5 UNEXPENDED MONIES (Copies
are attached). On Tuesday, October 23, I met with staff from CVAG, WRCOG, the County and two
of the cities in an attempt to clarify the issues being addressed, to review the proposed policy, and to
identify any alternative approachers which might effectively address these issues and could be
considered by the RCTC TAC and staff for recommending to the Commission. While no alternatives
were identified at the meeting, those who attended developed a much cleared understanding of the
issues and have agreed to discuss the issues with their agencies and to meet again to develop some
alternative proposals for consideration by the Commission. RCTC staff appreciates the cooperation
shown by these individuals recommends that no action on Proposed Policies 2.2 and 1.5 should be
recommended until the December Commission meeting.
We do not anticipate any of the remaining policies in the Revised Program and Policies Guide to require
anything more than a minor technical change following the RCTC TAC meeting and we will have those
changes incorporated prior to the Budget and Finance Committee and the Administrative Committee
meetings. Staff will request a determination by the Committees on two possible approaches for final
action on the Revised Program and Policy Guide. Option 1 will be to present the Revised Program and
Policy Guide to the RCTC for approval, with the exception of Policies 2.2 and 12.5 to be held over to
the December meeting. Option 2 will be to present the complete Revised Program and Funding Guide
to the Commission at their meeting in December.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Budget and Finance Committee discuss Proposed Policies 2.2 and 12.5, and that since there
in no pressing reason to approve the Revised Programming and Funding Guide prior to the December
Commission meeting, that approval of the Guide should be done at one time if at all possible, and
rescheduled to the December Commission meeting in order for the local agencies and staff to complete
their work on possible alternatives to Proposed Policies 2.2 and 12.5.
:jw
Attachment
F:\USERS\PREPRINT\NOV.95\GUIDE.PB
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: November 1, 1995
TO: Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: AMPG Recommendations Regarding RCTC Organizational Structure
I executed a limited contract with Applied Management Planning Group (AMPG) under single -signature
authority to provide advice to me regarding personnel and organizational issues. The attached October
19, 1995 letter deals with organizational issues and is appropriate for consideration by the Commission
during open session.
In summary, AMPG's letter includes three recommendations, which are as generally as follows:
1. Leave the choice of organizational structure to the Executive Director.
1 prefer "Option Two - Modified Matrix". In the event the Commission favors "Option One -
Traditional", the implications of that should be discussed with me in closed session.
2. Consider reassigning some responsibilities of the Assistant Director of Planning and
Programming to the Assistant Director of Intergovernmental Programs or to the Deputy
Executive Director.
I agree with this recommendation and will work with the affected Directors to sort out
reassignments.
3. Consider reassigning purchasing and procurement responsibilities from the Clerk of the
Commission/Office Services Manager to the Controller.
I agree with this recommendation. Given expanded work responsibilities, the Controller
believes a reclassification of the Account Clerk to Senior Bookkeeper is necessary ($2,020
additional per year). So long as he is provided with the current level of support through
Becthel, he does not believe that additional staff is required.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RECOMMENDATION:
The Executive Director recommends that the Commission:
1) Approve the AMPG recommendations; and
2) Authorize reclassification of the Account Clerk to Senior Bookkeeper and amend the budget
to transfer $2,020 from Contingencies to Salaries and Fringe Benefits.
"
A M P G
O c t o b e r 1 9 , 1 9 9 5
n E C E I V E D
O C T 2 3 9 5
I R ; / C P C : 1 i T A l f i r N C O M M I S S I O N
M r . J a c k R e a g a n
E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r
R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n
3 5 6 0 U n i v e r s i t y A v e . , S u i t e 1 0 0
R i v e r s i d e , C a l i f o r n i a 9 2 5 0 I
D e a r M r . R e a g a n :
A p p l i e d M a n a g e m e n t & P l a n n i n g G r o u p
1 2 3 0 0 W i l s h i r e B o u l e v a r d , S u i t e 4 3 0
L o s A n g e l e s , C a l i f o r n i a 9 0 0 2 5
3 1 0 . 8 2 0 - 0 7 4 1 " F A X 3 1 0 - 2 0 7 - 2 9 6 4
I n J u n e , t h e R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n ( R C T C ) c o n t r a c t e d w i t h t h e A p p l i e d
M a n a g e m e n t & P l a n n i n g G r o u p ( A M P G ) t o c o n d u c t t w o r e v i e w s : o n e o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n ' s
o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e , a n d o n e o f t h e E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r ' s s t a f f m a n a g e m e n t p r a c t i c e s . T h e
l e t t e r r e g a r d i n g t h e E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r ' s s t a f f m a n a g e m e n t p r a c t i c e s i s b e i n g s e n t s e p a r a t e l y , a s
i t i s c o n s i d e r e d a c o n f i d e n t i a l p e r s o n n e l m a t t e r a n d i s f o r t h e E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r a n d m e m b e r s
o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n o n l y . T h i s l e t t e r , r e g a r d i n g R C T C ' s o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e , i s a n o p e n
l e t t e r f o r r e v i e w a n d c o m m e n t .
I n p e r f o r m i n g t h i s r e v i e w , A M P G c o n d u c t e d i n d i v i d u a l , i n - p e r s o n i n t e r v i e w s w i t h a l l R C T C
p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f , r e v i e w e d o u r n o t e s f r o m p r e v i o u s i n t e r v i e w s c o n d u c t e d w i t h a l l s t a f f a s p a r t
o f t h e 1 9 9 5 T r i e n n i a l P e r f o r m a n c e A u d i t ( a l s o c o n d u c t e d b y A M P G ) ,
w i t h a l l R C T C p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f s i m u l t a n e o u s l y t o d i s c u s s f u n c t i o n a l a s s i g n m e n t s . c o n d u c t e d a m e e t i n g
D u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f t h e r e v i e w , w e f o c u s e d o n t w o o r g a n i z a t i o n a l i s s u e s :
" T h e o f f i c i a l s t r u c t u r e o f R C T C , a s p o r t r a y e d i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n c h a r t ;
" T h e d e f a c t o s t r u c t u r e o f R C T C , a s a n d ,
r e f l e c t e d i n t h e a l l o c a t i o n o f s t a f f t o
p r o g r a m m a t i c a r e a s .
E a c h o f t h e s e i s s u e s i s d i s c u s s e d b e l o w , f o l l o w e d b y A M P G ' s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s .
O r g a n i z a t i o n a l S t r u c t u r e
A s o u n d o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e a c c o m p l i s h e s t w o i m p o r t a n t o b j e c t i v e s . F i r s t , i t d a r i f i e s w h o i s
t o d o w h a t a n d w h o i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r w h i c h r e s u l t s , a n d s e c o n d , I t p r o v i d e s a d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g
c o m m u n i c a t i o n s n e t w o r k . T h e r e i s n o " o n e b e s t
t h e r e a r e s e v e r a l c o m m o n m o d e l s . T h e m o s t p a t t e r n " o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d e s i g n , a l t h o u g h
d e p e n d s o n i t s s i z e , t h e j o b s t o b e d o n e , t h e p e o p l e i n v o l v e d , t h e u s e r s b e i n g s t r u c t u r e f o r s e r v e d , a n d � o t h e r
c o n t e x t u a l f a c t o r s .
Mr. Jack Reagan
October 19, 1995
Page 2. -
RCTC currently has 19 authorized full-time staff positions. In an organization of RCTC's size,
there are two primary organizational options which are suitable - a traditional hierarchical
approach or a modified matrix design. Each of these is presented schematically in Figure 1.
Figure I
Organizational Options
outward focus
Option One
Traditional
inward focus
Option Two
Modified
Matrix
Under both organizational options, the Executive Director maintains a primary focus on external
affairs. While the Executive Director also provides overall leadership and guidance on internal
matters, responsibility for specific programmatic areas is delegated to others inside the
organization.
Under the traditional model, Option One in the preceding figure, a manager (usually a Deputy
Executive Director position) one level down from the Executive Director would oversee
internal staff, coordinating work through a layer of supervisors (Le. the Assistant Directors,
Controller, and Clerk of the Commission). The primary purpose of this type of organizational
structure is to free the Executive Director from much of the agency's day-to-day internal
management, so that he/she can focus on policy -level issues and negotiations with outside
entities. Usually, in this type of structure, the Executive Director has selected the Deputy so that
he/she is comfortable delegating both authority and responsibility.
The key benefit of the traditional model is the clarity it provides in terms of lines of authority and
decision -making. Individuals higher up in the organizational structure are explicitly responsible
for the products of the individuals they supervise. Such a structure works well when supervisors
Mr. jack Reagan
October 19, 1995
Page 3 •
•
•
oversee a distinct group of employees, and is often put in place when a manager's span of
control extends beyond eight or ten individuals. There are unintended consequences associated
with the introduction of a layered structure, however, such as more complicated
communication. It has been widely noted that layers of management act as "filters" of
information, and the more levels an organization has, the greater the number of omissions and
misinterpretations that are likely to occur. Additional levels also tend to be more expensive,
since more effort is devoted to the task of managing.
Under Option Two, the modified matrix design, which more accurately reflects the current
organizational structure of the RCTC, the Executive Director directly manages the work of the
Commission staff through the Deputy Executive Director, the Assistant Directors, the
Controller, and the Clerk of the Commission. In this flatter structure, the Executive Director's
span of control includes five direct reports. The individuals reporting to the Executive Director
each have lead responsibility for some programmatic areas, and play a support role in other
areas. The supervisors' span of management varies according to the
programmatic areas to
which they are assigned, with a different "team" of staff utilized to carry out each of RCTC's
programs.
Staff and management expressed a preference for the modified matrix approach, recognizing the
benefit of being able to flexibly take advantage of the skills and knowledge of various team
members in the execution of work processes and the preparation of products. It is for these
reasons that the matrix approach is widely used in the technology industry and in corporate
research and development, settings where work tends to be project -oriented in a manner not
unlike RCTC's programmatic orientation. In an organization the size of RCTC, the flexibility
associated with this design is desirable.
Recommendation I: Since both organizational options are valid, the choice of
which structure to implement should be the prerogative of the Executive Director.
Functional Assienments
Under a matrix management structure, like the one currently used at RCTC, there are potential
complications. In particular, the flexibility of the structure can result in a de facto organization
which unevenly allocates staff.
Based on an analysis of professional staff allocation, presented in Figure 2, it appears that the
workload of professional staff could be better balanced. Figure 2 presents the current allocation
of RCTC's professional staff to the programmatic areas addressed theagency.
this figure, the Assistant Director of Plannin and Pro by As shown in
to 12 areas, and there are several areas which lack a designated leader. as a key contributor
Mr. Jack Reagan
October 19, 1995
Page 4
Figure 2
Current Allocation of Professional Staff
to Programmatic Areas
•
I
E
i
e
E
I
M
la"
E
E
it
S
J I
i i
i i
N i
N 1
N
N
N
Property Technician
(anent iaabat C. Gast)
Construction Management Consultants
, 1
✓
/
✓
✓
/4.✓+
✓+
/
Measure A - Wetly ✓+
t/
✓
Measwe A - Commuter Assistance
12
✓+
Property Management - Administration
*
✓
Property Management - Saks and Negotiations
✓+
CommoterRail/Other Rail
1+
1+
✓
Service Authority for freeway Emergencies (SAFE)
✓+
freeway Service Patrol
1+
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
•
Congestion Management and Air Quality (CMAQ/STP)
./+
tr
✓
Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)
1
I
Congestion Management Program (CMP)
1+
I
*
__ -
✓+
Regional Transportation Plan
1+
I
State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP)
1+
tr
Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP)
/+
fir
Transporatioa Enhancements (TEA)
tf
✓
Local Streets/Roads
✓
✓+
it
Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP)
/+
✓+
(r7)
Transportation Development Act fends Administration
I
I
*
./+
( +)
Federal Transit Administration
1
federal liaison
I+
*
✓(ra7)
Sate liaison
s/+
ti
1(rail)
./+
Regional liaison
,/+
*
✓(ad)
✓
Local liaison
1+
/+
/( WN
Mr. Jack Reagan
October 19, 1995
Page 5
•
•
•
Recommendation 2: The Executive Director should consider reassigning
functional responsibility for some of the areas currently under the Assistant Director
of Planning and Programming to the Assistant Director of Intergovernmental
Programs or to the Deputy Executive Director.
While the Assistant Director of Planning and Programming has overall responsibility for only one
of RCTC's programmatic areas, this position plays a substantial role in 16 additional areas. While
the current allocation of assignments reflects the Assistant Director of Planning and
Programming's high degree of commitment to and interest in RCTC's programs, the allocation
of staff could be better optimized by redistributing assignments more equally among the
Assistant Directors and the Deputy Executive Director.
It should be noted that balancing assignments among the programmatic areas tends to be
complicated by the fact that RCTC's worldoad varies seasonally, with a heavier period falling
between January and July. Rather than adding personnel, who would be busy during these
months but might not be fully utilized at other times, the practice has been for the existing staff
to work harder during the heavy periods. It appears that some of the tasks associated with the
heavy period, such as data entry, database manipulation, and data analysis could be readily
assigned to temporary help or contractors. Instituting regularly scheduled programmatic area
meetings (perhaps monthly) may provide a forum in which to voice concerns regarding
anticipated workload fluctuations.
In considering the balance of assignments, it should also be noted that there are a few
programmatic areas which lack a lead staff person. One programmatic area without a strong
lead commitment is the Regional Transportation Plan. Another area which lacks a clear leader,
air quality planning, is currently under discussion with the Western Riverside County Council of
Governments (WRCOG), and may become the responsibility of RCTC.
Recommendation 3: The Executive Director should clarify the role of RCTC with
respect to transportation -related air quality planning and analysis for the County.
Should that function become part of RCTC's responsibility, an additional professional -
level staff member may be needed.
Figure 3 presents the current allocation of RCTC's professional staff to the agency's support
functions, and demonstrates a pattern similar to that described above with regard to the
programmatic areas. Two functions, public relations and the oversight of legal and computer
consultants, lack a single leader. The Clerk of the Commission/Office Services manager has lead
responsibility for seven support functions, including purchasing and procurement. This function,
which largely centers on financial transactions, could be streamlined by assigning it to the
Controller.
Recommendation 4: The Executive Director should consider reassigning the
functional responsibility for purchasing and procurement, currently under the Clerk of
the Commission/Office Services Manager, to the Controller.
Mr. Jack Reagan
October 19, 1.995
Page 6
Figure 3
Current Allocation of Professional Staff
to Support Functions
3
Finance & kcounting
1+
1
Legal
J
Board Clerk
Secretary Supervision
Personnel Administration
Purchasing & Procurement
Public Information
*1
Computer Support
Documents/Record Retention and Control
Office Facilities
' Public relations/verbal contact
Printed materials
Mr. Jack Reagan
October 19, 1995
Page 7 .
This letter should be reviewed by the Commission in conjunction with our accompanying letter
regarding the Executive Director's staff management practices. Should you have any questions
or desire further information, please contact me at (310) 820-0741.
Cordially,
S�
Cheryl Stech Ph.D.
President
cc: Alex Clifford
"
R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
D A T E : N o v e m b e r 1 , 1 9 9 5
T O : B u d g e t a n d F i n a n c e C o m m i t t e e
F R O M : D e a n M a r t i n , C o n t r o l l e r
S U B J E C T : U n a u d i t e d F i n a n c i a l I n f o r m a t i o n f o r t h e A n n u a l N e w s p a p e r R e p o r t
A n n u a l l y , t h e C o m m i s s i o n r e p o r t s t o t h e p u b l i c o n i t s a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s f o r t h e p a s t
y e a r . A d v e r t i s e m e n t s a r e p u r c h a s e d i n m a j o r n e w s p a p e r s t h r o u g h o u t t h e C o u n t y
t o c o n v e y t h i s m e s s a g e . T r a d i t i o n a l l y , t h i s r e p o r t i n c l u d e s i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m t h e
C o m m i s s i o n ' s u n a u d i t e d f i n a n c i a l r e p o r t s . S t a f f i s r e q u e s t i n g C o m m i s s i o n
a p p r o v a l t o i n c l u d e t h e a t t a c h e d f i n a n c i a l i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e a n n u a l r e p o r t t o t h e
p u b l i c t o b e r e l e a s e d i n m i d N o v e m b e r .
S T A F F R E C O M M E N D A T I O N :
T h a t t h e C o m m i s s i o n a u t h o r i z e t h e E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r t o i n c l u d e t h e a t t a c h e d
u n a u d i t e d f i n a n c i a l i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e a n n u a l n e w s p a p e r r e p o r t t o t h e p u b l i c .
: j w
A t t a c h m e n t
RMrsrae Corny Transpwtatlon
Combined 8tetemyk or Revenues. lapenemores, and
Mwntal Pond Typos
and EXpandabla Trust Pund
Year Ended June 11111
(MMItl1 Comparable totals Were yaw ended June 110. 11114)
•
•
REVENUES
Sales tax revenue 5,154.727 49,785,971 25,090,060 60,030,71! 75,988.38f
Reimbursements 246,500 5,635,055 5,751,306 4,653 12.40,514 17,502,55'
Interest income 188,571 2,282.616 5,132,553 436,598 160,936 8,204272 5.122.=
Other income 50,565 3,193,484 432,327 3,989,399 3.541,76'
EXPENDITURES TOTAL REVENUES 5.653,363 61.197,106 12,316,186 439,596 .25255.669 4,1 1 91,920 102,260,129 Administration:
Salaries and benefits 731,376 100,416 691,792 676.493
Professional services 597,120 4,874 173,850 866,44 1,026,040 Office lease 131,617 8,401
General legal Cervices 84,537 14,828 • 140,018 174,843
Oilier 443.720 38.123 03,191 114,370
000 1 ,843 TOTAL ADMM
BSTR 1,988,370 256,642 522 2�, 927,384Programs: 173.850 2.40,662 2.919.130
Highways 30,793 1,522,41 23,425,006 Local street 24.878,040 50.390.700
and roads 19,455.48 Regional arteriole 253.650 18.169,008 18,762.725
355,946 11.759,532
Commuter rail 2,007,886 3,655,878 21,388 12,116,478 4,973,942
Commuter Assistance 966,680 9,286,152 22,134,41
Tr 899,94 1,191,5111
Bicycles and Pedestrians 4, '� 23,127,671 27,181,782 28.339,507
Planning = 647,128
Towing and programming 306,044 572.268 850,560 1,1509222 1,804 1,139,444
Other Freeway Service Patrol Operations 32,258 672288 495,146
CaII box maintenance and operations 559,117 87,24 51.244
TOTAL PROGRAM 2,944,723 31,986,415 35,205,926 64.117 575,538
24,741,303 94,880,387 128,693,373
Governmental Fund Typos Mdlidary
Fund Type Tatar
(M random (Memorandum
11P0:511 Capital Debt
General Revenue
Projects Service Trust 1991 1994
Debt:
Principal
Interest
Costs of issuance
TOTAL DEBT SER
LocaN2egional Distributions 377,927
Capital Outlay 97239 80,288 377.927' 398,000
TOTAL EXPENDIT 5,408 39 32,325,345 35,205,926 23 177,527 1,176,649
REVENUES OVER (UNDER) 245,104 28,871,761 ' ' 25 .309 121.789,408 155,044,218
922,84,740)
10,636,011
12,694,712
23,379,723
10,666,011 10227,386
12,64,712 11,832,801
23,373,723 21,660,116
OTHER FINANCING SOURCE$(USES)
Operating transfers in 0 1,779,594 25,04.582 6
Operating transfers out 29,914,199 30.1170110
CommercialBond (30,1178,1110)
p s R5.11i9,43',� (1.674.721) p0.1�
Pads 15,000,000
p
Total other financing souross(u s 0 (23,379,84) 15,000,000 23,378,41 15.000200 15,003,000 -
16,000000 15200200._
REVENUES AND OTHER FPIANCING
SOURCES OVER (UNDER) 245,14 5,491,920 (7,889,740) 265,64
(7034) N.MM9n (57.754.0515
(23,113,977) (7,634) (15.94.4911) 0.784.098)
FUND BALANCE -July 1,1964
PRIOR PERIOD 2,485,349 46,635,802 88,396,853 2,301,952 5,460,577 1 ADJUSTMENT 659,982 411,2•033 183,084.29
FUND BALANCE -July 1,1994 RESTATED 3,3,15,331
FUND BALANCE -June 30, 19915 3.590.435 52.127.722 80.507.113 2.587.816 5.452.943 143.386.047 1��t
•
RNERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COhIMISSION
COMBW D BALANCE MET,ALL RIND TYPES AND ACCO
For the Year Ended June 30,11 6
SPKW Capital Debt
ASSETS General Revenue Projects Service
Cash 3,583,113 38,329,483 3,784,770 $202,493
Accounts receivable 243,870 Z483,235 2,070,132
Interest tae 51,272 580,800 59,476 3,028
Due from other funds 1,198,135 5,885,290 1,377,765 43,622
Due from other governments 187,880
Loans receivable 7,918,055 6,531,143
Other receivables 616,940
Prepaid expenses 1,117,648
Restricted assets:
Deferred compensation plan assets
Investments held by trustee 79,199,981 2,318,673
Real property held for development
Land and improvements
Equity investment in joint venture
Rail operating easement
Office fumiture,equipment and
leasehold improvements
Callbox equipment
Other debits:
Amount available in debt service fund
for payment of general long term
debt principal
Amount to be provided for:
Commercial paper notes
Long term debt
Notes payable
Compensated absences
Total Assets 55.076.390 557.108.331 593.023.267 52.567.816
"
L I A B I L I T I E S A N D F U N D B A L A N C E S
L i a b i l i t i e s
A c c o u n t s P a y a b l e
D u e t o o t h e r f u n d s
C o m p e n s a t e d a b s e n c e s p a y a b l e
C o m m e r c i a l p a p e r n o t e s p a y a b l e
N o t e p a y a b l e
B o n d s p a y a b l e
D e f e r r e d c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s p a y a b l e
D e f e r r e d g a i n
R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N M M I S S I O N
C O M B I N E D B A L A N C E S H E E T - A L L F U N D T Y P E S A N D A C C O
F o r t h e Y e a r E n d e d J u n e 3 0 , 1 9 9 6
S p e c i a l C a p i t a l D e b t
G e n e r a l R e v e n u e P r o j e c t s S e r v i c e
6 2 1 , 3 4 2 1 , 3 4 0 , 2 5 5 7 , 8 9 8 , 1 6 9
8 6 4 , 6 1 3 3 , 0 2 3 , 4 1 4 4 , 6 1 7 , 9 8 5
T o t a l L i a b i l i t i e s 1 , 4 8 5 , 9 5 5
1 , 4 8 5 , 9 ` 5 4 , 9 8 0 , 6 0 9 1 2 , 5 1 6 , 1 5 4
F u n d E q u i t y
E q u i t y a n d o t h e r c r e d i t s :
I n v e s t m e n t i n g e n e r a l f a c e d a s s e t s
R e t a i n e d e a r n i n g s
F u n d b a l a n c e s :
R e s e r v e d
R e s e r v e d f o r h i g h w a y s a n d c o m m u t e r r a p
R e s e r v e d f o r r e g i o n a l a r t e r i a l s
R e s e r v e d f o r s p e c i a l i z e d t r a n s p o r t a t i o n
R e s e r v e d f o r l o c a l s t r e e t s & r o a d s
R e s e r v e d f o r l o a n s r e c e i v a b l e
R e s e r v e d f o r p r e p a i d r e n t
R e s e r v e d f o r d e b t s e r v i c e
R e s e r v e d f o r S t a t e T r a n s i t A s s i s t a n c e
R e s e r v e d f o r u n c l a i m e d a p p o r t i o n m e n t s
R e s e r v e d f o r b i c y c l e s a n d p e d e s t r i a n s
R e s e r v e d f o r t r a n s i t
9 , 5 7 7 , 7 2 9 8 , 1 2 1 , 2 9 1
2 6 , 0 4 9 , 3 9 6 4 2 , 0 2 7 , 1 9 2
4 , 6 5 9 , 8 5 5
1 9 3 , 3 2 8
2 , 9 3 0 , 3 2 6 6 , 5 3 1 , 1 4 3
1 , 1 1 7 , 6 4 8
2 3 , 8 2 7 , 4 8 7 2 , 5 6 7 , 8 1 6
2 1 9 , 4 7 5
5 8 7 , 9 1 6
U n r e s e r v e d :
D e s i g n a t e d f o r b i c y c l e s a n d p e d e s t r i a n s
D e s i g n a t e d f o r c o n t i n g e n c i e s
U n r e s e r v e d a n d u n d e s i g n a t e d 3 , 9 2 7 , 7 3 6
3 , 5 9 0 , 4 3 5 T o t a l F u n d E q u i t y 3 , 5 9 0 , 4 3 5 2 , 2 , 3 1 3
5
7 2 , 1 1 2 7 , 7 7 2 8 0 , 5 0 7 , 1 1 3 2 , 5 6 7 , 8 1 6
T o t a l L i a b i l i t i e s a n d F u n d E q u i t y 3 5 0 7 6 3 9 0 5 5 7 1 0 8 3 3 1 3 9 3 0 2 3 . 2 6 7
5 2 . 5 6 7 . 8 1 6
ASSETS
Cash
Accounts receivable
Interest receivable
Due from other funds
Due from other governments
Loans receivable
Other receivables
Prepaid expenses
Restricted assets:
Deferred compensation plan assets _
Investments held by trustee
Real property held for development
Land and improvements
Equity investment in joint venture
Rail operating easement
Office fumiture,egnupment and
leasehold improvements
Callbox equipment
Other debits:
Amount available in debt service fund
for payment of general long term
debt principal
Amount to be provided for
Commercial paper notes
Long term debt
Notes payable
Compensated absences
Total Assets
NT GROUPS
Proprietary
Eunana
Internal
Service
14,725
269
1,200
516.194
Fiduciary
FootINN
That and
X11
5,478,974
287
40,382
376,951
Account Grooms
Gatudid S>�oauL
Reed Long Tenn
Assets Debt
51,571,050
8,600,000
19,884,650
888,317
3,088,590
•
Totals
(MEMORANDUM ONLY)
1998 1894
51,393,558
4,797,524
724,207
8,506,012
187,880
14,449,198
616,940
1,117,648
58,836,01.
2,873,4a
462,54
1.383,41E
182,70E
9,240,06'
1,439,604
376,951 285,488
81,518,654 82,281,110
51,571,050
8,600,000
19,884,650
51,789,305
8,600,000
19,884,650
888,317 784,871
3,088,590 3,014,509
1,494,594 1,494,594 1 463
30,000,000 30,000,000 1
220,434,371 220,434,371 231,123,747
375,801 375,801 405,812
106,708 106,708 93,308
55.896.574 664.032.607 8252.411.474 1500.132.653 8488.860.120
NT GROUPS
Proprietary Fiduciary Account
wn
internal T�'= �(d OOroGa
and Fixed �!L 'Totals
Service Agency Assets Debt Tenn (MEMORANDUM
1996 11949104
LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES
Liabilities
Accounts Payable
Due to other funds
Compensated absences payable
Commercial paper notes payable
Note payable
Bonds payable
Deferred compensation benefits payable
Deferred gain
Total Liabilities
6,358 443,631 252,411,474 271,844,181 259,497,634
Fund Equity
Equity and other credits:
Investment in general foxed assets
Retained earnings 9,836 84,032,607 84,032,607 84,073,335
Fund balances: 9,836 8,618
Reserved
Reserved for highways and commuter rail
Reserved for regional arterials 17,699,020 17,853,364
Reserved for specialized transportation 68,076,588 73,030,878
Reserved for local streets & roads 4,659,855 4,753,589
Reserved for loans receivable 193,328
Reserved for prepaid rent 9,461,469 9,240,082
Reserved for debt service 1,117,648
Reserved for State Transit Assistance 26,395,303 28,129,439
Reserved for unclaimed apportionments 219,475 768,960
Reserved for bicycles and 4'x'4 4,837,269 4,377,897
Reserved for transit
501,423 501,423 606,699
587,916 786,327
Total Liabilities and Fund Equity
316.194 35.896.574 $84.032,607 $252.411.474 $500.132.653 $488.860.120
6,355 666,680 9,932,804 38,586,796
8,506,012 1,383,416
106,708 106,708 93,308
30,000,000 30,000,000 15,000,000
375,801 375,801 405,812
221,928,989 221,928,965 232,303,210
x'891 376,951 285,488
616,940 1,439,604
Unreserved:
Designated for bicycles and pedestrians 126,975
Designated for contingencies 128,975 41,371
Unreserved and undesignated 3,927,736 2,110,293
Total Fund Equity 9,836 (12,724) 6,442,024 5,578,658
5,452,943 84,032,607 228,288,472 229,382,486
"
"
I V F R S I D F C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
D A T E : N o v e m b e r 1 , 1 9 9 5
T O : B u d g e t a n d F i n a n c e C o m m i t t e e
F R O M : T h o m a s H o r k a n , M e a s u r e A P r o j e c t M a n a g e r
L o u i e M a r t i n , P r o j e c t C o n t r o l s M a n a g e r
T H R O U G H : J a c k R e a g a n , E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r
S U B J E C T : M o n t h l y C o s t a n d S c h e d u l e R e p o r t s
T h e a t t a c h e d m a t e r i a l d e p i c t s t h e c u r r e n t c o s t s a n d s c h e d u l e s t a t u s o f c o n t r a c t s
r e p o r t e d b y r o u t e s , c o m m i t m e n t s , a n d c o o p e r a t i v e a g r e e m e n t s e x e c u t e d b y t h e
C o m m i s s i o n . F o r e a c h c o n t r a c t a n d a g r e e m e n t , t h e r e p o r t l i s t s t h e a u t h o r i z e d v a l u e
a p p r o v e d b y t h e C o m m i s s i o n , p e r c e n t a g e o f c o n t r a c t a m o u n t e x p e n d e d t o d a t e , a n d
t h e p r o j e c t e x p e n d i t u r e s b y r o u t e w i t h s t a t u s f o r t h e m o n t h e n d i n g S e p t e m b e r 3 0 ,
1 9 9 5 .
D e t a i l e d s u p p o r t i n g m a t e r i a l f o r a l l s c h e d u l e s , c o n t r a c t s a n d c o o p e r a t i v e a g r e e m e n t s
i s a v a i l a b l e f r o m B e c h t e l s t a f f .
S T A F F R E C O M M E N D A T I O N :
T h a t t h e C o m m i s s i o n r e c e i v e a n d f i l e .
: j w
A t t a c h m e n t s
F : \ U S E R S \ P R E P R I N T \ N O V . 9 5 \ M O N T H R . L M
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
ROUTE 60 PROJECTS
Preliminary Engrg/Environ
(R 09218,9232,9303,9304,9305, 9306)
SUBTOTAL ROUTE 60
ROUTE 74 PROJECTS
Cooperative Agreement
Preliminary Engrg/Environ/Final Engrg
(R09012,9106,9115,9117,9122)
Construction & ROW (R09225,9226,9206,9207)
(9012 Constr. /ROW Only)R09329,9330,9331)
$UBTOTAI. ROUTE T#
ROUTE 79 PRO JECTS
Preliminary Engrg/Environ. /ROW
(RO9111,9112,9116,9118,9301,9302,9337,9306)
Lambs Canyon Proj. (R09423,9429,9518,9522)
Sanderson Project (R09011)
SUBTOTAL RO UTE 79
RO UTE 86 PRO JECTS
Final Design (R08907)
Construction & Mitigation
(R09213,9227,9342,9343,9106)
SUBTOTAL ROUTE 86
ROUTE 111 PROJECTS
Corridor Study (RO9016,9219,9234,9523,9227,
9525,9530,9537)
SUOTOTI4i. ROUTE 111
RCTC MEASURE A HIGHWAY/RAIL PR OJECTS
BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE
•
CO MMISSI ON CONTRACTURAL % C OMMITTED
AUTH ORIZED C OMMITMENTS AGAINST AUTH.
ALLOCATI ON TO DATE ALLOCATION
$3,839,295
$3,838,295
(4)
$3,358,713
$8,183,914
$11542,827
$8,961,366
$21,073,703
$23,115,000
353,150.069.
$1,219,000
$20,115,078
(4)
$21,334.078
$1,954,11'5
91,954,11.0
$3,411,944
93,411,944:
$3,358,713
$8,183,914
$11,542;627
$8,455,649
$19,937,168
$13,022,522
341,418,339
$1,219,000
$16,148,369
(4)
$317,467,369
$1,692,616
$1,852.618.
Page 1 of 4
88 .9%
100 .0 %
100 .0%
100 .0%
94.4 %
94 .6%
56 .3 %
77.914
100.0 %
80.3%
81;4%.
86. 6%
86.6%
EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES
MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST
Sept ember 30, 1995 TO DATE COMMIT MNTS TO DATE
$114,402
$2,806,714
82,821,116
$47,608
$47,602
$2,839,778
92,836,778
$2,937,277
$7,482,777
$10;420,054:
$8,358,224
$15,794,110
$11,965,913
346,118,247
$1,210,000
$15,927,436
317,137,436
$1,511,639
$1,511,$38
83.2 %
87.5%
91.4%
98.8%
79 .2%
91.9%
81.2%
99 .3%
98 .6%
88.y`,1f
89.3%
89;3%
RCTC MEASURE A HIGHWAY PROJECTS
BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE
COMMISSI ON CONTRACTURAL
PROJECT AUTH ORIZED COMMIT MENTS
DESCRIPTION ALLOCATION TO DATE
ROUTE 91 PR OJECTS
Magnolia to OCL (HOV) R08801,8901,8902,9001
9002,9133,9214,)
City of Corona (Smith, Maple, Lincoln IC) (3)
Magnolia to Mary
(R09101,9102,9103,9105,9212,9415, 9308,9524)
SR71 to 1-15 (R09123,9128,9129,9130)
I-15 to 1-215 (R09131)
McKinley Undercrossing (R0 9326)
Van Buren Blvd. Frwy Hook Ramp
SU$TQT1 t RO UTE 91 .,
1-215 PROJECTS
Preliminary Engrg/Environ. (R09008, 9018) (5)
Right -of -Way (R09003, 9004,9009,9336, 9222
0007PR1 /2& 0007PR3/4, 0007HS3-5,9411,9622)
SUBTOTAL 1215
INTERCHANGE IMPROV. PROGRAM
Prelim. Engrg (PSR'S) (9107,9124-9127) (1)
RT91 Interchange (Maple & Lincoln)
Eastridge Overcrossing (R09132)
Galena Interchange (R09014)
Yuma IC Final Design (PS&E) R09428
Yuma IC (City of Norco R09237)
SUBTO't'AI INTERCHANGE
BECHTEL PROJECT MGM T SERV.
(R08900 thru R09600)
8UQTOTAL.. BECHTEI. :;
(3)
$30,982,198
$8,104,137
$10,812,508
$3,393,807
$108,792
$1,614,951
$2,300,000
$55,111.6.393
$6,726,504
$32,770,000
$39,498,504'.
$3,666,628
$1,288,240
$1,500,000
$73,980
$1,200,000
$650,000
$6,378,848
$11,389,236
$11,3$9:236
$27,055,658
$7,015,976
$10,530,460
$3,261,015
$108,792
$1,614,951
$2,300,000
$49,586,852
$5,450,721
$32,770,000
$38,220,721:
$3,666,628
$1,288,240
$900,000
$73,980
$1,099,975
$650,000
$7,67823.
$11,091,236
$11,091,238
Page 2 of 4•
% C OMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES
AGAINST AUTH. MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE A GAINST
ALLOCATION Sept ember 30,1995 TO DATE C OM MITMNTS TO DATE
87 .3 %
86.6%
97.4%
96 .1%
100 .0%
100 .0%
90 .1%'
81 .0%
100 .0%
86.8%
100.0%
100.0%
60.0%
100. 0%
91. 7%
100. 0%
91;4%
97.4%
974
$222,981
$3,329
: $222,981
$14,003
$14,903
1126,937
$126,937.
1101,991
$101,991_
$26,878,754
$7,015,976
$8,114,671
$2,642,335
$108,792
$1,375,088
$44 T69x3Z8
$5,377,083
$30,695,836
1311,472,919'
$1,807,776
$1,288,240
$73,980
$701,018
1280,000
$4,151,014
$9,424,818
$9,424,818
99 .3%
100 .0%
77 .1%
81 .0%
100 .0%
85 .1%
98 .6%
93 .7%
49.3%
100.0%
100.0%
63 .7 %
43 .1%
04.4%
85 .0 %
$6.0%
" "
"
P R O J E C T
D E S C R I P T I O N
P R O G R A M P L A N & S E R V I C E S
P r o g r a m S t u d i e s
( R 0 9 0 0 6 , 9 0 1 0 , 9 0 1 3 , 9 1 0 8 , 9 1 1 9 , 9 2 2 7
9 3 0 7 , 0 0 0 7 P C 2 / 3 / 4 - S A C O G / D T I M )
C o r r i d o r S t u d i e s
( R 0 9 0 1 7 , 9 1 1 0 , 9 1 2 0 )
M a p p i n g C o n t r o V Q A ( R 0 9 0 0 7 )
$ U 8 T O T A L P R O G R A M t L A N & $ V C S
P A R K - N - R I D E / I N C E N T . P R O G R A M
( R 0 9 1 1 3 , 9 1 1 4 , 9 1 2 1 , 9 1 3 4 , 9 2 0 2 , 9 2 0 3 , 9 4 1 2 , 9 4 1 3
9 2 0 4 , 9 2 0 5 , 9 2 1 1 , 9 2 1 0 , 0 0 0 7 C A 2 / 3 , I m p r , 9 4 1 0
9 2 3 6 , 9 3 1 1 , 9 3 2 8 , 9 3 3 2 , 9 3 4 4 , 9 4 0 1 - 9 4 0 3 , 9 4 1 8 , 9 5 2 6
9 5 0 1 - 9 5 0 6 , 9 5 1 4 9 5 1 7 , 9 5 1 9 , 9 5 2 8 , 9 6 0 1 - 9 6 1 3 )
S U B T O T A L p A 4 $ 0 1 4 0 0 0
C O M M U T E R R A I L
S t u d i e s / E n g i n e e r i n g
( R 0 9 0 2 1 , 9 1 0 5 , 9 2 2 0 , 9 3 0 9 , 9 3 1 9 , 9 3 2 1 , 9 3 1 0 , 9 4 0 7
9 3 2 5 , 9 2 3 5 , 9 3 2 3 , 9 3 2 7 , 0 0 0 7 R S 3 - B B & K , 9 4 2 1
9 3 2 0 . 9 3 2 2 , 9 3 2 4 , 9 3 3 3 , 9 3 4 5 , 9 4 1 4 , 9 2 2 7 , 9 4 2 0 , 9 4 3 0 )
S t a t i o n / S i t e A c q / O P C o s t s
( R 0 8 9 0 5 , 9 2 0 1 , 9 2 0 9 , 9 0 0 9 , 9 2 2 1 / 2 3 / 2 4 , 0 0 0 7 R F 3 . 8 ,
9 5 2 7 , 9 4 1 7 , 0 0 0 7 R A 2 - 4 , 9 4 1 6 , 9 4 2 4 , 9 5 1 0 , 9 5 2 9 , 3 1 , 3 2
0 0 0 7 R S 3 , 9 3 3 5 1 4 0 / 4 1 , 0 0 0 4 I P 3 , 9 5 2 1 , 9 6 2 0 , I M P R .
S U E T O T A L C O M M U T E R R A I L
T O T A L S
N O T E : ( 1 ) L o a n a g a i n s t i n t e r c h a n g e i m p r o v e m e n t p r o g r a m s .
( 2 ) M a y b e r e d u c e d b y p a s s a g e o f S B 3 0 0 f u n d s .
( 3 ) R C T C p r o j e c t a c t u a l s h a r e a f t e r p o r t i o n a l l o c a t e d t o R T 9 1 , I C I m p r o v e m e n t P r o g r a m ( l o a n ) & L o c a l S t r e e t s & R o a d s P r o g r a m .
( 4 ) R C T C p o r t i o n o n l y o f C o l t r a n e C o n t r a c t
( 5 ) S A N B A G r e s p o n s i b l e f o r 2 5 %
R e p o r t d o e s n o t i n c l u d e L e g a l a n d F i n a n c i a l s e r v i c e s o r s a l a r y a n d f r i n g e b e n e f i t s
A l l v a l u e s a r e f o r t o t a l P r o j e c t / C o n t r a c t a n d n o t r e l a t e d t o f i s c a l y e a r b u d g e t s .
R C T C M E A S U R E A H I G H W A Y P R O J E C T S
B U D G E T R E P O R T B Y R O U T E
C O M M I S S I O N C O N T R A C T U R A L % C O M M I T T E D
A U T H O R I Z E D C O M M I T M E N T S A G A I N S T A U T H .
A L L O C A T I O N T O D A T E A L L O C A T I O N
$ 5 , 2 7 5 , 1 6 1
$ 6 8 9 , 4 5 0
$ 2 , 6 8 3 , 7 2 9
$ 8 , 6 4 8 , 3 4 0
$ 6 , 7 2 9 , 9 6 6
$ 6 , 7 2 9 . 9 6 6
$ 4 , 3 4 4 , 1 6 8
$ 9 2 , 7 7 6 , 3 8 8
5 9 7 , 1 2 0 , 6 6 6
3 1 4 , 7 6 0 ; 7 3 2
$ 5 , 2 7 5 , 1 6 1
$ 6 4 0 , 4 6 7
$ 2 , 6 8 3 , 7 2 9
$ 8 , 6 9 9 ; 3 5 7
$ 6 , 7 2 9 , 9 6 6
$ 8 , 7 2 9 ; 8 6 8
$ 4 , 3 4 4 , 1 6 8
$ 9 Z 5 4 8 , 8 0 5
1 0 0 . 0 %
9 2 . 9 %
1 0 0 . 0 %
a 4 x
1 0 0 . 0 %
0 o . 0
1 0 0 . 0 %
9 9 . 8 %
E X P E N D I T U R E F O R % E X P E N D I T U R E S
M O N T H E N D E D E X P E N D I T U R E S T O - D A T E A G A I N S T
S e p t e m b e r 3 0 , 1 9 9 5 T O D A T E
$ 2 , 4 4 8
$ 2 , 4 4 8
$ 2 3 2 , 4 9 5
* 4 9 1
$ 4 1 , 6 2 3
$ 3 , 0 3 3 , 3 0 5
$ 3 , 0 7 4 , 6 2 8
* 9 6 , 8 9 2 , 9 7 3
$ 2 9 9 0 , 8 1 7 , 8 7 9
P a g e 3 o f 4
8 2 A %
$ 6 , 7 4 4 , 5 0 7
$ 3 , 2 0 1 , 5 9 3
$ 6 3 4 , 9 1 5
$ 2 , 6 3 2 , 9 9 1
$ 4 , 4 8 9 , 9 1 1
$ 8 5 , 8 4 2 , 1 0 6
3 9 0 1 7 6 , 0 8 0 .
$ 2 8 3 , 8 7 3 , 9 0 3
C O M M I T M N T S T O D A T E
6 0 . 7 %
6 6 . 7 %
9 9 . 8 %
9 2 . 8 %
9 3 . ' 1 : 1 1
S S A
S t a t u e M o . E n d i n g 0 0 / 3 0 / 9 3
RCTC MEASURE A HIGHWAY/LOCAL STREETS & ROADS PR OJECTS
BUD GET REP ORT BY PROJECT
EXPENDITURE FOR TOTAL. % EXPENDITURES
PROJE CT APPROVED MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES LOAN OUTSTANDING TO -DATE A GAINST
DES CRIPTI ON COMMIT MENT September 30, 1995 TO DATE BALANCE CO MMITMENT APPR OVE D C OMMIT:
CITY OF MURRIETA
Loan Agreement 1-15/1-215
Interchange improvements (R09334)
SUBTOTAL MURRIETA LOAN
CITY OF CANYO N LAKE
Final Design and Construction of
Railroad Canyon Rd Improvements (R09422)
SUBTOTAL CANYON LAKE LOAN
CITY OF CORONA
Smith, Maple 8 Unco ln Interchanges &
Storm drainage structure
$5,212,623
SUBTOTAL Ci v OF G tRONA $$,212,623
$23.842.823
NOTE: (1) Loan against interchange improvement programs
(2) May be reduced by passage of SB 300 funds.
All values are fo r total Project/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets.
$17,000,000
$17,000,000
$1,600,000
$1,800,000
so
$0
TOTALS.
so
so
$2,379,711
$2379,711'
$1,600,000
$1,600,000:
$5,212,623
06,192,334'
$1,140,487
$1,140,487
$1,600,000
O O00
$5,212623
85.213,623
$7853,110,
$15,859,513
1585.9,413
$0
$0
So
$15,868,613
Page 4 of 4
14.0%
100.0%
100.0%
•1
Status Mo. Ending 00/30 46
J
A
1992
5
0
N
D
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
5
0
N
D
J
F
M
RT15 AT YUMA DR - CONSTRUCT INTERCHANGE
A
M
1994
J
J
A
5
0
N
1995
J
D
J
M
A
M
J
A
S10
N
D
J
F
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL
M
M
1996
IJ
RT74 I15 TO 7TH ST - WIDEN TO 4 LANES
RT74 G ST TO I215 - WIDEN TO 4 LANES
RT79 GILMAN SPR TO 15T ST - WIDEN TO 4 LANES
1=1Imul PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL
FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E
RIGHT OF WAY
J
5
0
N
D
J
F
M
1997
M IJ IJ
FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E
RIGHT OF WAY
A
S
0
N
D
J
CONSTRUCTION
F
1M
1998
AIMIJIJJA
S
0
N ID
1999
J IF IM ►AIM IJ
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL
RIGHT OF WAY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & E VIRONMENTAL
RT79 KELLER ST TO NEWPORT ST - WIDEN TO 4 LANES
CONSTRUCTION
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL
RIGHT OF WAY
RT 79 NEWPORT TO NEWPORT GAP
RT91 MAIN ST TO MAGNOLIA AVE - MEDIAN HOV
CONSTRUCTION
RT91 ORANGE COUNTY LINE TO MAIN ST - MEDIAN HOV
CONSTRUCTION
RT91 MAGNOLIA AVE TO MARY ST - MEDIAN HOV
FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E
RIGHT OF WAY CERTIFICATION ONLY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL
RT91 SR71 TO I15 - OUTSIDE WIDENING
CONSTRUCTION
RT111 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS ( 6 LOCATIONS )
RT215 E60/215 JCT TO SBCL - WIDEN TO 8 LANES
Plot Date 240CT95
Data Date 130CT95
ProJect Star t 2JANB9
Pr otect Finish 1SMAROO
PRELIMINARY; ENGINEERING I ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT STUDY REPORT (PSR) ONLY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL
1 S1w 7 arvErlrr Dehe
Gltinl Dn g t.,.
g DrlA rwrontiAAA Activity
Suet 1 of 2
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTN COMMISSN
RCTC LEAD AGENCY
SUMMARY SCHEDULE - BY RCTC
Date
. BECHTEL CORP
Re visi on
Checked
APProveL
(c) Priravpra Systems, Inc.
2.\DSERSVIAR11DI ASAR/u 001
1992
9
1999
JIAISI0IN D
J F M AIMIJIJ3A S OINfD
J F M A M1JJ4IA S 0 N D
J F M A MIJJSAIS
0 N D
J F M A MIJIJIA 5 O N D
J'
J F M AIM JA S 0 N D
JIF MIAIM JIJ$A SIO NID
J►FIMIAIMIJ
RT215 60/91/215 CONN R. 60/91/215 TO E60/215 JCT
ENGINEERING
& ENVIRONMENTAL
I PRELIMINARY
COMMUTER RAIL DOWNTOWN
INTERIM
ENGINEERING
DESIGN AND
OF WAY
STATION
B ENVIRONMENTAL
PS&E
PRELIMINARY
FINAL
RIGHT
CONSTRUCTION
COMMUTER RAIL PEDLEY
STATION
ENGINEERING
DESIGN
OF WAY
& ENVIRONMENTAL
AND PS&E
PRELIMINARY
I�1
FINAL
RIGHT
CONSTRUCTION
COMMUTER RAIL WEST CORONA STATION
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
ENVIRONMENTAL
DESIGN AND PS&E
CONSTRUCTION
FINAL
COMMUTER RAIL LA SIERRA STATION
ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL
DESIGN AND PS&E
CONSTRUCTION
I PRELIMINARYf
Icy
FINAL
COMMUTER RAIL
CITY OF PERRIS STATION
STUDY
COMMUTER RAIL - HIGHGROVE
LAYOVER & CONN TRACK
ENGINEERING B ENVIRONMENTAL
AND PS&E
I PRELIMINARY
FINAL DESIGN
COMMUTER RAIL - SAN JACINTO
RAIL LINE
STUDY
STUDY
Plot Date 24DCT95
Data Date 13DCT95
ProJec art 2JAN89
Proje ish 15MAR00
(c) Pr ra Systems, Inc.
i i
s...y e„vt.� o. t..
ait�ot e..��.w
I o'' i ,°�;,o„et,,,,t,
L 6 Sho ot a .f 2
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTN COMMISSN
RCTC AGENCY
SUMMARY SC LE - BY RCTC
_
BECHTEL CORP
'
„
Date
Revision
Checke ved
muau rsa
ax
"
1 9 9 2 1 9 9 3
J I A I 5 1 0 I N I D J I F I M I A I M I J I J J A I S J O I N I D I J
I F I M
I A I M
1 9 9 4
I J I J
R T 6 0 V A L L E Y W A Y T O U N I V E R S I T Y - W I D E N T O 6 L A N E S
I A I s
J D I N I D
J I F I M ! A I M
1 9 9 5
i J I J I A I s
1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8
1 I N I D J I F I M I A I M I J I J I A J S I O I N I D I F I M I A I M I J I J I A I S I O I N I D I J I F I M I A I M I J J J I A J S I O I N I D
P R E L I M I N A R Y E N G I N E E R I N G & E N V I R O N M E N T A L
F I N A L D E S I G N A N D P S & E
I R I G H T O F W A Y
R T 6 0 I 2 1 5 T O R E D L A N D S B L V D - W I D E N T O 6 L A N E S
P R E L I M I N A R Y E N G I N E E R I N G & E N V I R O N M E N T A L
F I N A L D E S I G N A N D P S & E
R I G H T O F W A Y
R T 6 0 V A L L E Y W A Y T O J C T I 1 5 - W I D E N T O 8 L A N E S
R T 8 6 D I L L O N R D T O A V E 5 8 - W I D E N
E i A R I G H T O F W A Y
R I G H T O F W A Y
P R E L I M I N A R Y E N G I N E E R I N G & E N V I R O N M E N T A L
F I N A L D E S I G N A N D P S & E
1 9 9 9
J I F I M I A I M I J
C O N S T R U C T I O N
C O N S T R U C T I O N
C O N S T R U C T I O N
R T 8 6 A V E 6 6 T O A V E 5 8 - W I D E N
F I N A L D E S I G N A N D P S & E
R I G H T O F W A Y
R T 8 6 A V E 8 2 T O A V E 6 6 - W I D E N
F I N A L D E S I G N A N D P S & E
m a y R I G H T O F W A Y
P l o t D a t e 2 4 0 C T 9 5
D a t a D a t e 1 3 O C T 9 5
P r o t e c t S t a r t 2 J A N 8 9
P r o j e c t F i n i s h 1 5 M A R O O
( c ) P r i m a v e r a S y s t e m s , I n c .
1 S m e a r y D r / E s 1 1 D a t e
4 C r i t i c a l D e s i g n a t o r
R l l e t m g e r A c t r I t y
R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T N C O M M I S S N
C A L T R A N S L E A D A G E N C Y
S U M M A R Y S C H E D U L E - B Y C A L T R A N S
D a t e
B E C H T E L C O R P
R e v i s i o n
C h e c k e d
A p p r o v e d
f \ D S E R 5 \ I T I D I E \ M U L D U 0 0 1
1992
1993
1994 1995 1996
1997
1998
1999
JIAISIOIN D
JIFIMIA MIJIJIAISIOINJD
J FIMIAIMIJIJ A s 0 I DJFMAM JIJIAIS
ONDJFIMIAIMIJIJIA S_O NID
J FIMIAIMIJIJIAISIOINID
JIFIMIAIMIJIJIAISIOINID
JIFIMIAIMIJ
RT 60 GALENA INTERCHANGE
ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL
I
I 1 PRELIMINARY
RT74 7TH ST TO G STUN PERRIS)
- WIDEN TO 4 LANE
•
CONSTRUCTION
RT79 SANDERSON
BRIDGE REPLACMNT(
ENGINEERING
S. JACINTO RIVER)
& ENVIRONMENTAL
FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E
RIGHT OF WAY
PRELIMINARY
I
I
1
1 CONSTRUCTION
RT91 SMITH/MAPLE/LINCOLN
OVERCROSS-WIDEN TO 4 LN
CONSTRUCTION
RT91 VAN BUREN BLVD/FWY HOOK
RAMP
ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL
FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E
RIGHT OF WAY
PRELIMINARY
o i
I 1 CONSTRUCTION
Plo t Date 240CT95
Data Date 13DCT95
PoJ teish 1209
tciwtra Systems, Inc.UMMARY
r vagusfw
nov ...�
auad.mMkti.�t�
Sh oot "f 1
RIVERSIDE COUNT TRANSPORTN COMMISSN
OTHER A ES AS LEADS
SC LE — BY OTHERS
BECHTEL CORP
Date
Revision ,_
C oved
—
W xa}v
rIOu aaaLLOI
_f,
"
"
R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
D A T E : N o v e m b e r 1 , 1 9 9 5
T O : B u d g e t a n d F i n a n c e C o m m i t t e e
F R O M : P a u l B l a c k w e l d e r , D e p u t y E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r
S U B J E C T : C E C E R T M o d e l i n g W o r k - H O V L a n e s
S e v e r a l m o n t h s a g e t h e C o m m i s s i o n d i r e c t e d s t a f f t o m e e t w i t h S C A G a n d o t h e r
a g e n c i e s t o d i s c u s s p o l i c y a n d t e c h n i c a l i s s u e s r e l a t e d t o t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f H O V
l a n e s r a t h e r t h a n m i x e d f l o w l a n e s i n t h e R i v e r s i d e a n d M o r e n o V a l l e y A r e a s a s
c u r r e n t l y p r o p o s e d i n t h e M e a s u r e A H i g h w a y P r o g r a m . W e h a v e h e l d p r e l i m i n a r y
d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s f r o m F e d e r a l H i g h w a y s r e g a r d i n g t h e i r r e q u i r e m e n t s
t o c o n s i d e r a n H O V l a n e a s a n a l t e r n a t i v e h i g h w a y s w h e n e v e r a f r e e w a y o f t w o o r
m o r e l a n e s i s p r o p o s e d t o b e w i d e n e d . T h e y a r e w i l l i n g t o c o n s i d e r a m o d i f i c a t i o n t o
t h e i r p o l i c y p a r t i c u l a r l y w h e r e t r u c k t r a f f i c a n d r o a d w a y g r a d e s a r e a f a c t o r . L a t e l a s t
w e e k J o e N o r b e c k a n d I m e t w i t h S C A G s t a f f t o d i s c u s s t h e i r m o d e l i n g a n d
c o n f o r m i t y p r o c e s s . S C A G s t a f f a g r e e d t h a t s o m e a d d i t i o n a l m o d e l i n g d o n e b y
C E C E R T w h i c h w i l l i d e n t i f y t h e i m p a c t s o f t r u c k a n d r o a d w a y g r a d e s m i g h t m a k e
r e l a t i v e c u r r e n t a s s u m p t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e f u n c t i o n i n g o f H O V l a n e s a n d m i x e d f l o w
l a n e s .
C E C E R T i s p r e p a r i n g a s c o p e o f w o r k a n d c o s t t o p e r f o r m t h e w o r k n e e d e d i n a
m a n n e r t h a t t h e r e s u l t s c a n b e i n t e g r a t e d i n t o t h e S C A G f o r e c a s t i n g a n d c o n f o r m i t y
m o d e l s . W e e x p e c t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l b e a v a i l a b l e f o r p r e s e n t a t i o n a t t h e B u d g e t
a n d F i n a n c e C o m m i t t e e m e e t i n g .
: j w
"
R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
D A T E : N o v e m b e r 1 , 1 9 9 5
T O : B u d g e t a n d F i n a n c e C o m m i t t e e
F R O M : P a u l B l a c k w e l d e r , D e p u t y E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r
S U B J E C T : R o u t e 7 9 ( L a m b s C a n y o n ) S t a t u s R e p o r t
T h e M e a s u r e A f u n d e d c o n s t r u c t i o n t o w i d e n R o u t e 7 9 f r o m t w o l a n e s t o f o u r l a n e s
t h r o u g h t h e L a m b s C a n y o n A r e a i s p r o g r e s s i n g r a p i d l y . T h e L a m b s C a n y o n w i d e n i n g
i s a m a j o r c o n s t r u c t i o n p r o j e c t r e q u i r i n g e x t e n s i v e e a r t h w o r k a n d g r a d i n g t h r o u g h
s o m e v e r y s t e e p c a n y o n a r e a s . U p o n c o m p l e t i o n , t h e p r o j e c t w i l l h a v e s o l v e d a
s e r i o u s s a f e t y p r o b l e m a n d w i l l p r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l c a p a c i t y n e e d e d f o r f u t u r e g r o w t h
i n t h e H e m e t / S a n J a c i n t o V a l l e y a r e a . T h e R o u t e 7 9 P r o j e c t i s t h e f i n a l p i e c e o f a f o u r
p a r t m a j o r f a c i l i t i e s i m p r o v e m e n t p r o g r a m w h i c h a l s o i n c l u d e d c o n s t r u c t i o n o f : t h e
S a n d e r s o n A v e n u e B r i d g e , t h e R o u t e 7 9 R a i l r o a d G r a d e S e p a r a t i o n a t 1 - 1 0 ; a n d t h e
R o u t e 7 9 / G i l m a n S p r i n g s R o a d G r a d e S e p a r a t i o n . F u n d i n g a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e s e
p r o j e c t s h a v e b e e n a c c o m p l i s h e d t h r o u g h e x t e n s i v e c o o r d i n a t i o n a n d c o o p e r a t i o n o f
a l l o f t h e m a j o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n a g e n c i e s : t h e C a l i f o r n i a T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n ;
C a l t r a n s ; t h e C o u n t y o f R i v e r s i d e ; a n d t h e R C T C . S t a f f w i l l p r o v i d e a n o r a l r e p o r t a n d
s l i d e s t o s h o w t h e p r o g r e s s m a d e t o d a t e o n t h e R o u t e 7 9 w i d e n i n g a n d G i l m a n
S p r i n g s G r a d e S e p a r a t i o n p r o j e c t s .
: j w
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: November 1, 1995
TO: Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Gary Martin, Bechtel
Tom Horkan, Bechtel
THROUGH: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT: Yuma Interchange Construction Cooperative Agreement
Staff is meeting with the City of Norco on October 31, 1995 to discuss the necessary
Construction Agreement to be entered into between the City and Caltrans. The City staff
has inquired about the possibility of RCTC managing construction, which may change
the Construction Agreement responsible local agency. Staff will present the results of
those discussions for RCTC consideration at the meeting.
:jw
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: November 1, 1995
TO: Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Dean Martin, Controller
Jerry Rivera, Staff Analyst III
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: FY 1996-2000 Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Program for
Local Streets and Roads
The Measure "A" Ordinance requires each recipient of streets and roads monies to
annually provide to the Commission a five year plan on how those funds are to be
expended in order to receive disbursements for local streets and roads. In addition,
the cities in the Coachella Valley and the County must be participating in CVAG's
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The agencies are also
required to submit the annual certification of Maintenance of Effort (MOE)
accompanied by documentation supporting the calculation.
At its July 12, 1995, September 13, 1995 and October 11, 1995 meetings, the
Commission approved the programs of nineteen local agencies. Staff has received the
required documents from the final local agency, the City of Beaumont, and staff
request the Commission accept their program.
Also, the City of Lake Elsinore has revised their Five Year Plan, and -they -are-
requesting Commission approval of their final adopted Measure "A" Plan as attached.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission accept the FY 1996-2000 Measure "A" Five -Year Capital
Improvement Plan for the City of Beaumont and the revised Plan from the City of Lake
Elsinore as submitted.
:jw
Attachment
"
R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n
M e a s u r e " A " L o c a l F u n d s P r o g r a m
F Y 1 9 9 6 . 2 0 0 0
A g e n c y : C I T Y O F B E A U M O N T
P r e p a r e d b y : D E E M O O R J A N I
D a t e : J U N E 2 7 , 1 9 9 5
I t e m
N o .
P r o j e c t N a m e / L i m i t s
P a v e m e n t M a n a g e m e n t P l a n
B e a u m o n t A v e n u e a n d S i x t h S t r e e t
B e a u m o n t A v e n u e a n d B r o o k s i d e A v e n u e
S i x t h S t r e e t a n d H i g h l a n d S p r i n g s A v e n u e
S t r e e t S w e e p i n g
S u b t o t a l F i s c a l Y e a r 1 9 9 5 - 1 9 9 6
F o u r t e e n t h S t r e e t
V i e l e A v e n u e
H i g h l a n d S p r i n g s A v e n u e
E l m A v e n u e
S t r e e t S w e e p i n g
S u b t o t a l F i s c a l Y e a r 1 9 9 6 - 1 9 9 7 t h r o u g h 2 0 0 0
P r o j e c t T y p e
E n g i n e e r i n g
R o a d R e h a b i l i t a t i o n
S i g n a l C o n s t r u c t i o n
S i g n a l I n t e r c o n n e c t
S t r e e t M a i n t e n a n c e & R e p a i r
R o a d R e h a b i l i t a t i o n
R o a d C o n s t r u c t i o n
R o a d R e h a b i l i t a t i o n
R o a d R e h a b i l i t a t i o n
S t r e e t M a i n t e n a n c e & R e p a i r
T o t a l C o s t
( $ 0 . 0 0 ' s )
$ 8 0 , 0 0 0
$ 1 7 7 , 0 0 0
$ 1 5 0 , 0 0 0
$ 2 0 0 , 0 0 0
$ 4 0 , 0 0 0
$ 6 4 7 , 0 0 0
$ 2 0 0 , 0 0 0
$ 2 0 0 , 0 0 0
$ 1 5 0 , 0 0 0
$ 1 5 0 , 0 0 0
$ 1 6 0 , 0 0 0
$ 8 6 0 , 0 0 0
$ 8 0 , 0 0 0
$ 1 7 7 , 0 0 0
$ 3 0 , 0 0 0
$ 3 0 , 0 0 0
$ 4 0 , 0 0 0
$ 3 5 7 , 0 0 0
$ 1 3 8 , 0 0 0
$ 1 3 8 , 0 0 0
$ 1 1 0 , 0 0 0
$ 1 1 0 , 0 0 0
$ 1 6 0 , 0 0 0
$ 6 5 6 , 0 0 0
Q 9 # w a n s p u a 2 V 1 1 / 1 1
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Measure "A" Local Funds Program
FY 199.2000
Agency: CITY OF BEAUMONT
Prepared by: DEEPAK MOORJANI
Date : JUNE 27, 1995
Item
N o.
Project Name/Limits
Project Type
Total Cost
($0.00's)
Measure "A"
Fu nds ($0 .00)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Pavement Management Plan
Beaumont Avenue and Sixth Street
Beaumont Av enu e and Brookside Avenue
Sixth Street and H ighland Springs Avenue
Street Sweeping
Subtotal Fiscal Year 1995-1996
Fourteenth Street (FY 96-97)
Viele Avenue (FY 97-98)
Highland Springs Av enu e (FY 98-99)
Elm Avenue (FY 99-2000)
Street Sweeping (FY 96-2000)
Subtotal Fiscal Year 1996-1997 through 2000
Engineering
Road Rehabilitation
Signal Construction
Signal Interconnect
Street Maintenance & Repair
Road Rehabilitation
Road Constr uction
Road Rehabilitation
Road Rehabilitation
Street Maintenance & Repair
$80,000
$177,000
$150,000
$200,000
$40,000
$647,000
$200,000
$200,000
$150,000
$150,000
$160,000
$860,000
$80,000
. $177,000
$30,000
$30,000
$40,000
$357,000
$138,000
$138,000
$110,000
$110,000
$160,000
$656,000
"
"
"
A g e n c y :
P r e p a r e d B y :
D a t e :
R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
M E A S U R E ' , A u L O C A L F U N D S P R O G R A M
F Y 1 9 9 6 - 2 0 0 0
C i t y o f L a k e E l s i n o r e
D a v i d R . K i r c h e r , C a p i t a l P r o j e c t E n g i n e e r
M a y 3 1 , 1 9 9 5
R e v i s e d O c t o b e r 2 , 1 9 9 5
I t e m # P r o j e c t N a m e / L i m i t s
1 .
2 .
3 .
4 .
5 .
M a i n S t r e e t / S u l p h u r S t .
L i m i t e d S t r e e t : M a i n S t . -
L a k e s h o r e D r i v e
C a s i n o D r i v e / D i a m o n d D r .
C . I . P . P r o j e c t s / C i t y S t r e e t
M a i n t e n a n c e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
S e r v i c e s : V a r i o u s L o c a t i o n s /
P r o j e c t s
G u n n e r s o n S t r e e t : D e B r a s k
A v e . - R i v e r s i d e D r i v e
6 . M i s s i o n T r a i l : D i a m o n d D r . -
M a l a g a R o a d
7 . L a k e s h o r e D r i v e : M a i n S t . -
C o u n t r y C l u b B l v d . ( L a k e
P o i n t e P a r k E n t r a n c e )
8 . M a i n S t r e e t / L a k e s h o r e D r i v e
9 .
S p r i n g S t r e e t : G r a h a m A v e . -
C o l l i e r A v e n u e
P r o j e c t T y p e
F Y
T o t a l
( 5 0 0 0 1 s )
D e c o n t a m i n a t i o n 9 5 / 9 6 7 5
S t r e e t I m p r o v e m e n t s 9 5 / 9 6 2 5 0
T r a f f i c S i g n a l
M a s t - A r m R e p l a c e m e n t
P u b l i c W o r k s /
E n g i n e e r i n g A d m i n . /
C o n s t r u c t i o n M g m t .
( P a y r o l l / S u p p l i e s )
S t r e e t I m p r o v e m e n t s
9 5 / 9 6
9 5 / 9 6
9 6 / 9 7
9 7 / 9 8
9 8 / 9 9
9 9 / 0 0
1 0
5 0
5 0
5 0
5 0
5 0
9 5 / 9 6 1 7 5
S t r e e t R e h a b i l i t a t i o n 9 6 / 9 7 4 5 0
S t r e e t I m p r o v e m e n t s /
R e a l i g n m e n t
I n t e r s e c t i o n
I m p r o v e m e n t s
P a v e m e n t O v e r l a y /
R e s u r f a c i n g
9 6 / 9 7
9 6 / 9 7
9 6 / 9 7
1 5 8
3 0
1 0 0
M e a s u r e A
F u n d s ( $ 0 0 0 ' x )
7 0
2 0 0
1 0
5 0
5 0
5 0
5 0
5 0
1 7 5
5 5
2 0
3 0
1 0 0
10 . Chaney Street: Lake sh ore
Drive - Sumner Aven ue
11.
Mis c. Street Repairs/
Maint .: Variou s Locations
12. M isc. Street Re storation
Various Loc ati ons
13.
14.
Grand A ve./River sid e Dr.
Curb and Side walk
Replacement Pr ogram:
V arious Locations
15. Lake shore Drive: Te rra Cotta
Roa d - Dryde n Stree t
16. La keshore Drive: Jernigan
St. - 200' Eas t of M achado St.
17. Graham Ave nue: Main St. -
Mohr Str eet
Pavement Overlay/
Resurfacing
Slur ry Se al
P avem ent
Overlay
96/97 20 20
96/97
97/98
98/99
99/00
Rehabilit ation/ 96/97
97/98
99/00
Inter section
Realignment/
Improvement s
N ew Curb & Gutt er/
Sidewalk; R&R Exi sting
Sid ewalk
Street Wide ning
Street Wid ening
Landscape/Irrigation
96/97
97/98
98/99
99/00
20
20
20
20
100
100
100
1300
1300
1300
1300
20
20
20
20
100
100
100
100
150
200
250
97/98 100 100
98/99 100 100
99/00 100 100
97/98 250 50
98/99 250 200
97/98 400 80
99/00 400 150
98/99 145 20
•
"
"
"
A G E N D A I T E M # 7 A
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: November 1, 1995
TO: Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Senior Staff Analyst
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Transit Funding Shortfall -Results of Joint RCTC/RTA Meeting
On Wednesday, October 18, 1995, representatives from the RCTC and RTA Board of
Directors met to consider bus and rail funding needs and projected transit funding
shortfalls. The representatives present at the meeting included:
RCTC RTA
Alex Clifford Jim Hyatt, City of Calimesa
Bob Buster Judy Baitinger, City of Perris
Dick MacGregor Karel Lindemans, City of Temecula
Tom Mullen Jessie Myers, Alternate for Kay Ceniceros
John Tavaglione Andrea Puga, City of Corona
Bill Trembly, City of Canyon Lake
Staff provided a review of the transit funding situation as well as a compromise
document that was prepared jointly by RCTC and RTA staff. This document is
attached for your review with RCTC staff comments noted in bold print. The majority
of the discussion focused on this document and on whether the principles could be
a basis for agreement on how funding would be allocated in future years. This issue
was not agendized for action at the special meeting. It was understood that the
representatives would go back to their respective Boards for final discussion and
action.
The RTA Board of Directors will be meeting on Thursday, October 26 to review the
Basis for Agreement principles. The RTA staff recommendation is for approval of the
principles; RCTC staff also recommends approval of the principles.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission approve the RCTC/RTA Transit Operating Funding --Basis for
Agreement.
4111 :jw
"
"
"
R I V E R S I D E T R A N S I T A G E N C Y
1 8 2 5 T h i r d S t r e e t
R i v e r s i d e , C A . 9 2 5 0 7
O c t o b e r 2 6 . 1 9 9 5
T O : B O A R D O F D I R E C T O R S
F R O M : S u s a n J . H a f n e r , G e n e r a l M a n a g e r
S U B J E C T : L o c a l T r a n s p o r t a t i o n F u n d i n g S h o r t f a l l - R e s u l t s
o f J o i n t R T A / R C T C B o a r d M e e t i n g
S u m m a r y : O n W e d n e s d a y , O c t o b e r 1 8 , 1 9 9 5 , t h e f o l l o w i n g r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s f r o m t h e R T A
a n d R C T C B o a r d s m e t t o d i s c u s s t h e c u r r e n t t r a n s i t f u n d i n g s h o r t f a l l :
R T A
J i m H y a t t , C h a i r m a n
J u d y B a i t i n g e r , F i r s t V i c e C h a i r
B i l l T r e m b l y , S e c o n d V i c e C h a i r
K a r e l L i n d e m a n s , B o a r d M e m b e r
J e s s i e M y e r s , B o a r d A l t e r n a t e
R O T C
A l e x C l i f f o r d , C h a i r m a n *
B o b B u s t e r , C o m m i s s i o n e r *
D i c k M a c G r e g o r , C o m m i s s i o n e r
T o m M u l l e n , C o m m i s s i o n e r *
J o h n T a v a g l i o n e , C o m m i s s i o n e r *
* A l s o R T A B o a r d m e m b e r s .
A t t h i s m e e t i n g a t h o r o u g h r e v i e w o f t h e t r a n s i t f u n d i n g s i t u a t i o n w a s p r e s e n t e d
a l o n g w i t h a c o m p r o m i s e d o c u m e n t t h a t w a s p r e p a r e d j o i n t l y b y R T A a n d R C T C
s t a f f . ( P l e a s e s e e a t t a c h e d - t h e b o l d c o m m e n t s a r e n o t a t i o n s b y R C T C s t a f f . )
A l t h o u g h n o a c t i o n w a s t a k e n , t h e r e w a s a g e n e r a l c o n s e n s u s a m o n g t h o s e p r e s e n t
t h a t t h e a t t a c h e d l i s t i n g o f p r i n c i p l e s w o u l d b e t h e i n i t i a l g u i d e l i n e o n h o w f u t u r e
i s s u e s w o u l d b e d e a l t w i t h .
O v e r a l l , t h e a t t a c h e d b a s i s f o r a g r e e m e n t p r e s e n t s a b a l a n c e d a p p r o a c h t o f u n d i n g
a l l t r a n s i t m o d e s f o r t h e f u t u r e . I t i n c l u d e s s a c r i f i c e s i n p l a n n e d s e r v i c e
i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o n b o t h b u s a n d r a i l m o d e s . I f a p p r o v e d b y t h e R T A B o a r d o f
D i r e c t o r s a n d t h e R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n , t h e R T A s t a f f
w i l l b e g i n t o r e f o r m u l a t e a r e c o m m e n d a t i o n f o r s e r v i c e a d j u s t m e n t s t o m e e t t h e
f i n a n c i a l c o n s t r a i n t s t h a t t h i s n e w f i n a n c i a l p l a n e n t a i l s . T h i s s t a f f
r e c o m m e n d a t i o n w i l l b e ' d e v e l o p e d a n d p r e s e n t e d f o r f u t u r e R T A B o a r d a p p r o v a l
w i t h a p l a n n e d s e r v i c e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n d a t e t o t a k e p l a c e i n e a r l y 1 9 9 6 .
R e c o m m e n d a t i o n :
A p p r o v e t h e R T A / R C T C B a s i s f o r A g r e e m e n t - T r a n s i t O p e r a t i n g F u n d i n g
p r i n c i p l e s .
Transit Operating Funding --Basis for Agreement
Agree that this year's operating funding allocation will not All
changed. We need to receive an updated plan showing new operating
level i.e., where and how is the money going to be spent. We
cannot legally allocate more LTF than is needed to operate system
per California Code of Regulations 6634. We could, however,
reserve the allocation for RTA.
Agree to hold off on major service implementation until after the
funding formula's have been determined. We agree no service
improvements should be made until formula is determined. We see a
need for clarification of a "major service implementation". Does
this mean no service improvements will be made at all or none over
the 25% service change threshold?
Agree that any cost savings: that occur now and in the future, will
remain within the RTA's budget reserves. We need to secure legal
counsel opinion whether this is allowable under TDA (CCR 6634). As
suggested earlier, perhaps any reserves could be held at RCTC but
identified specifically to the operator. For clarification, if this
is acceptable, it would apply to all bus and rail operators, not
just RTA.
Agree on an acceptable funding formula for local transportation
funds which will be followed for a defined period of time (for
example five years). Staff could support the 80/20 proposed
bus/rail formula.
Gain agreement from the Commission that Measure A will be utilized
to defray costs of the RTA paratransit services. Staff would
support 50% of Measure A Specialized Transit revenues being
directly allocated to all Western County bus operators to support
paratransit services.
Formalize in writing how State Transit Assistance Funds will be
divided between the Transit Operators. Staff would recommend that
the allocation be made the same way as LTF--based on population for
each apportionment area then on the agreed upon bus/rail formula
within the Western County apportionment area.
•
r
•
t
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: November 1, 1995
TO: Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT: Route 79 Surface Transportation Funding Trade Request
At the June, 1995 meeting the Commission approved programming $3 million in
discretionary federal funding from the Surface Transportation Program for the Route
79 Winchester Road widening project. The total cost of this project is estimated at
$6.5 million. Route 79 is a major arterial for the Southwest County Area with severe
congestion. The County of Riverside is the lead agency for this project. The County
has already received environmental clearance for the project through the State (CEQA)
process and design has been completed. The County expects to have agreements for
right of way and the remainder of the funding needed for this project within the next
two months, and the project could go out to bid, except that federal funds are
involved.
The County and the City of Temecula are anxious to get this project under
construction. Congestion on this section of the highway is already severe and is
worsening. In addition, a new school is being constructed and the highway
improvements are needed to provide safety for students who will travel daily to and
from the school. The use of federal funds will require the County to essentially begin
the environmental clearance process again in order to meet federal (NEPA)
requirements. The County would have to wait until the environmental process was
completed to acquire any right of way using federal guidelines. Construction of the
project could easily be delayed 1 - 2 years. The County has applied for State Local
Partnership finds through the SB 300 Process and expect to use these funds to offset
project costs. If a contract for construction is not awarded by June 30, 1996 they
will not be eligible those funds.
The County of Riverside has requested the Commission, if at all possible, to provide
$3 million in non federal funds as a swap for the STP funds.
Staff has reviewed the projects currently programmed for Measure A funding.
Projects such as the Yuma/I-15 Interchange and interchanges on 1-10 in the Coachella
Valley are too far along to consider using the federal funds. We have identified
$2.405 million in Measure A and other non federal funds which the Commission could
consider for a swap with the County. The Galena/I-15 Interchange Project currently
has $1.5 million in Measure A funding budgeted in the current fiscal year. An
Page 2
additional $4 million in Measure A funds has been committed and is to be budgeted
in future years for a total of $5.5 million in Measure A funds for the project. The
Galena Interchange Project is on the interstate highway system and will have to be
processed through federal environmental and design review processes. The use of
STP funds on this project would not create any delay. The Commission also has an
account, Account #836, with $905,000 in local funds which could be swapped for
the STP funds. The remaining $595,000 could be made available if the Commission
would agree to budget this amount of Measure A funds for the Galena/I-15
Interchange project in next fiscal year and agree to swap them to the County for the
balance of the STP funds.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the Commission:
1) Amend the Measure A Budget to increase the appropriation for the Galena
Interchange by $500,000 (i.e., up from $1.5 million to $2 million of the total
$5 million Measure A program commitment);
2) Conditionally exchange $2 million of Measure A funding from the Galena
Interchange project to the Route 79 project for a like amount of STP; the
condition relates to a full funding agreement for the entire Route 79 project by
February 1, 1996;
3) Exchange $905,000 from local exchange account number 836 for the Route
79 project for a like amount of STP; this STP funding would be subject to
reprogramming at the Commission's discretion at a future date;
4) Approval of these items are further conditional upon a condition that the cost
of interest on commercial paper for Measure A funds shall be included as a cost
of the Route 79 project and reimbursed to RCTC.
:jw
"
D A T E :
T O :
F R O M :
R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
N o v e m b e r 1 , 1 9 9 5
B u d g e t a n d F i n a n c e C o m m i t t e e
H i d e o S u g i t a , A s s i s t a n t D i r e c t o r o f P l a n n i n g a n d P r o g r a m m i n g
T H R O U G H : J a c k R e a g a n , E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r
S U B J E C T : F Y 1 9 9 6 - 9 7 T r a n s i t C a p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t P r o g r a m
I n l a t e S e p t e m b e r , C a l t r a n s a n n o u n c e d t h e " a v a i l a b i l i t y " o f a n t i c i p a t e d f u n d i n g f o r t h e
F Y 1 9 9 6 - 9 7 T r a n s i t C a p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t ( T C I ) P r o g r a m . T h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f f u n d s i s
b a s e d o n t h e e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t t h e S t a t e G e n e r a l F u n d w i l l p a y b a c k a " l o a n " o f $ 9 4 . 5
m i l l i o n t o t h e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n n i n g a n d D e v e l o p m e n t A c c o u n t ( T C I f u n d s a r e
a l l o c a t e d f r o m t h i s a c c o u n t ) . B a s e d o n t h i s a s s u m p t i o n , C a l t r a n s e s t i m a t e s t h a t
a p p r o x i m a t e l y $ 2 5 . 0 m i l l i o n o f T C I f u n d s w o u l d b e a v a i l a b l e t o s u p p o r t T C I c a p i t a l
p r o j e c t s . O f t h i s a m o u n t $ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 i s R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y ' s a p p r o x i m a t e f u n d i n g t a r g e t .
C a l t r a n s D i s t r i c t 0 8 a s s i s t e d R C T C s t a f f b y p r o v i d i n g a m a i l o u t o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n
p a c k a g e s t o a l l c i t i e s , t r a n s i t o p e r a t o r s a n d t h e c o u n t y . T h e m a i l o u t i n c l u d e d a d u e
d a t e f o r p r o j e c t a p p l i c a t i o n s a s O c t o b e r 1 7 , 1 9 9 5 . A s o f t h a t d a t e o n l y t w o
a p p l i c a t i o n s w e r e r e c e i v e d . A n a p p l i c a t i o n f r o m t h e C i t y o f I n d i o t o d e v e l o p a n
i n t e r m o d a l p a s s e n g e r s t a t i o n a t t h e e x i s t i n g A m t r a k s t o p a t J a c k s o n S t r e e t a n d a n
R C T C p r o j e c t f o r t h e e x t e n s i o n o f t h e e m e r g e n c y p l a t f o r m i n c l u d i n g t r a c k
i m p r o v e m e n t s o n t h e U n i o n P a c i f i c l i n e t o f a c i l i t a t e b i - d i r e c t i o n a l t r a i n l o a d i n g a n d
u n l o a d i n g a t T h e P e d l e y S t a t i o n .
A s t h e C o m m i s s i o n i s r e q u i r e d t o i d e n t i f y p r i o r i t i e s f o r t h e p r o j e c t s , s t a f f r e c o m m e n d s
T h e P e d l e y R a i l S t a t i o n p r o j e c t b e r a n k e d # 1 a n d t h e I n d i o I n t e r m o d a l S t a t i o n p r o j e c t
b e r a n k e d # 2 . T h i s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n i s b a s e d o n p o t e n t i a l s e r v i c e s a n d r i d e r s h i p t h a t
c a n r e a s o n a b l y b e e x p e c t e d i n t h e n e a r f u t u r e , a n d o n w h a t h a s o c c u r r e d i n t h e p r i o r
t w o T C I r o u n d s .
C V A G h a d p r e v i o u s l y i d e n t i f i e d a p r e f e r e n c e f o r t h r e e i n t e r c i t y r a i l s t a t i o n s t o b e
l o c a t e d i n P a l m S p r i n g s , P a l m D e s e r t a n d I n d i o . I n t h e p r i o r t w o r o u n d s b o t h t h e P a l m
S p r i n g s a n d P a l m D e s e r t p r o j e c t s w e r e a l l o c a t e d T C I f u n d s . T h e I n d i o s t a t i o n h a s
b e e n a n e s t a b l i s h e d A M T R A K s t o p f o r m a n y y e a r s ; h o w e v e r , A M T R A K s e r v i c e
t h r o u g h t h e C o a c h e l l a V a l l e y h a s a c t u a l l y d e c l i n e d w i t h i n t h e l a s t y e a r , a n d n o n e w
s e r v i c e i s o n t h e h o r i z o n .
O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , d e m a n d f o r M e t r o l i n k s e r v i c e o n t h e R i v e r s i d e L i n e c o n t i n u e s t o
g r o w a n d c a n o n l y b e a c c o m m o d a t e d w i t h i n c r e a s e d t r a i n f r e q u e n c i e s . T h e P e d l e y
F : \ U S E R S \ P R E P R I N T \ N O V . 9 5 \ 9 6 - 9 7 T C I . H S
Page 2
Station improvements are among the projects Union Pacific requires in order to add
additional train trips on their right-of-way. The project is also an opportunity to
leverage our investment of local funds in The Pedley Station, providing for additional
operating flexibility, necessary safety improvements, and more frequent stops at
Pedley. The goal is a more balanced travel pattern, including future reverse commute
options, which would maximize the use of train crews and equipment and increase
revenues. Staff recommends that The Pedley Station improvements be the highest
priority.
As you are aware, TCI funds require a 50% local match. For the Commission's
information, the purchase and construction of The Pedley Station was completed
entirely with Measure A funds. The phased application for this project ($500,000 in
FY 1996-97 and $3,300,000 in FY 1997-98) uses The Pedley Station as the local
match for the project. No additional match funds will be required. The Indio project
requests $1.5 million in TCI and the City is providing the requisite local match.
Attached is the required Fixed Guideway Financial Plan for the FY 1996-97 TCI
project proposals.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Commission approve the submittal of the FY 1996-97 TCI applications, reflecting
the above priorities, and adopt the FY 1996-97 TCI Fixed Guideway Financial Plan.
:jw
Attachments
F:\USERS\PREPRINT\NOV.95\96-97TCI.HS
Cuanse Minimum the Project Will Affect
(b1 M ounty Rq iu„us only):
Share of
Cale 112iscrigatt
fighmai
TPaD✓rCz
AB 973
Proposition 116
FCR/SHA
PTA Section 3
PTA Section 9
1D A STA
Lod Salle Tax
Private
Thtnt FY 1994.95
Feeding Received
may`•
Otter T. nra i j
Tow
FY 1995-96
Funding Received
1 r a g a Year••
•
1111.
Indio Intermodel C enter Riv . Cnty. Transp . Comm.
I'hNfi ti. Ni ,1• rimming Ageso
#2
Project's Regional Priority Ranking Project's Regio nal.
Priority Ranking
Within the County
:hi i 2
STATE TRANSIT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
REGIONAL GUIDEWAY FINANCIAL PLAN
(S In Millions)
FY 1996.97
Funding Needed
Y Fiscsl Year
$1.5
$1. 5
$3.0
Estimated Funds Needed in Subsequent
Fier t Years 10 Ce .� -•
onoYsit Std ,th 5th
Yat IRK %[ DMA
IGIAL
$1.5
1.5
$3 .0
Annual inflation rate (if any) assumed far eadt year in the plan:
•••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••• ••••••• ••••• ••••••••••••••• •••••••••••• ••••••••• •••••.• ••••••• •••••••• ••••••••• .•.
K
NN
• % % %_% %
•• Include all finds received prior to the start of the anent state fiscal year. ••. .•.•.•• •••• ••• ••N ••••
N• Mahe your best estimels of the had. you expect to receive this state fiscal year.
The 7'Pa DiIfCI dollars in this oolunr are those Californ iaompete in the
approved by the
allocation
hemixt ay idds with
in fiscal s 3 By b Ito nouab for • p in this colu mn,~Transportation Comm
ission's determined
Transit Capital Impr ovement year Olin Commission allocation and that the FTA Se ction 3 ssd/ar 9. TDA/STA and local sales hot ( program fb base
r an
d �'ths �• ti ansatatbrrsnos is a bitr�o fl �mitoeat of Ihods pr'01°rt aPWicant err expr er
• signing a oontnq to patens trm M ahiclas is an ana srrnba os. al allocation in cipient. whether or sat the recipient has atteully disbursed the hods . Far
ltilld /40/99)•
E11�d.S0f� t
TP& D✓PCI
Proposition 1011(AB 973)
Prepadtien 116
PCR/SHA
PTA Salton 3
PTA !Nation 9
7D A/STA
Loom) Sala Tax
Prints
Abler Local
Total .
Urn FY 1994-93
Funding Received
_ LlI'. Yana.
$ 17.48
$36. 00
$53.48
AMU
SUMMARY - ALL PROJECTS
STATE TRANSIT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PR OGRAM
REGIONAL GUIDEWAY FINANCIAL PLAN
(3 In Millio ns)
FY 1995-96
Fending Received
lftr Yarn!
FY 1996-97
Funding Needed
kingattimixteatt
$ 2.0
$1.5
$3.5
Riv . Cnty. Tra nsp ortatio n Commiss
Planning Agency
Estimated Funds Needed in Subsequent
__ Fisc al Yeah to C _4-• o�•
2M 3rd 4th SW
Us Y.= r x
$3 .3
$3.3
;2216L
$36.00
$60.28
••••••inflation •••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
A6••• ••••••••• ••••••••••• •••• ••••••••••••• •••••• ••••••:74•6•••
muuli••• raa•(ii••• any) • assumed f ••oe cock •• Cpl ••••'K ••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• e••••.N
•••••••••iT• ••••• •••••••••••• ••••••••i•x ••••••• ••� • •••' •* •... ....6.66• •••••••••
' . x.•6.66••• •••••••
' include •
all Mds nuodwd prior le the ahtt of the anen t state fiscal
year.
•
•• Makeyourbest estimate of the beds
you expect to receive thL hate fien d year.
"' The TPt Dr<I�CI dolYwt in this oolutttrtt are those approved by the
f c d Undo is lids
elate fiscal By "don to compme k the California Tran sportation Commission's de Transit Capital bnprovenent member the Me guideway Audi within on e year dWe�� � �b for a project is this column. the �a has determined dm p �Pt'0Or car no
P d tinonb a commitment Commission allocation and that the FTA Section 3 and/at 9. TDA/STA and local odes tax foods as cap expend or
a s pvduese un seat sublease it of by on allocation roeipiesd, whether at not the recipient Naas
7r 'fa has aciW fy disbursed the
STATE OF CALIFORNIA -BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY '
•
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
NEW TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH PROGRAM
1227 O STREET, MS -83
P.O. Boot 942873
SACRAMENTO, CA 94273-0001
(916) 6548877
FAX (916) 654-9977
HQ TDD (916) 6544014
Regional Deployment Plan Managers
Southern California ITS Priority Corridor
PETE WILSON. Governor
September 25, 1995
Subject: Availability of Additional Corridor Planning Funds
As indicated at the last meeting of the Priority Corridor Steering Committee, the New Technology and
Research Program. (NT&R) will have extra funds available for deployment planning in the Priority Corridor in
the 1996-97 fiscal year. One reason for the surplus is a lower -than -anticipated bid from the contractor who
will be preparing the Corridor -wide deployment plan. Regional teams may apply for additional funds.
The application should include a clear description of existing conditions and the need for the additional
funds. For example, need could result from such factors as an expanded planning area and expanded scope of
work. Also, the request should identify the purpose/activities to which the funds will be applied.
There should be sufficient funds to allocate up to 10% more per region of each region's total allocation
(Inland Empire: $500,000; Los Angeles -Ventura: $562,500; San Diego: $500,000). Eighty percent of the
increase would be federal and the remaining 20% state; no additional local funding would be required for
matching purposes.
In order to help NT&R budget its next fiscal year's resources and to transfer the funds by the
beginning of the 1996-97 fiscal year (to make sure the funds are available), please apply for any needed
additional funding by the end of December 1995.
Should you have any questions about this procedure, please call George Smith at 916.654.9849 (Int:
gcsmith @trmx3.dot.ca.gov).
Sincerely,
Patrick Conroy, Chief
Office of Advanced Transportation
Systems Management and Planning
cc: GSmith
Dean Delgado
Steering Committee
bcc: KHanson
SValverde
fp CShiigi
DEPLOYMENT PLAN MANAGERS
REGIONS
San Diego
John Duve
San Diego Association of Governments
401 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 595-5368
Fax: (619) 595-5305
Los Angeles -Ventura
Patricia Perovich
Caltrans, District 7
Operations
120 South Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
(213) 897-0334
Fax: (213) 897-0678
Inland Empire
Hideo Sugita, Assistant Director for Planning
Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100
Riverside, CA 92501
(909) 787-7924
Fax: (909) 787-7920
Corridor -wide and Orange Co. EDP
George Smith, Executive Secretary
Caltrans
New Technology and Research Program
1227 0 Street, Room 504
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 654-9849
Fax: (916) 654-9977
Dean Delgado
Orange County Transportation Authority
P. O. Box 14184
550 South Main Street
Orange, CA 92613-1584
(714) 560-5744
FAX: (714) 560-5794
•
OTHER
September 25, 1995
"
R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
D A T E : N o v e m b e r 1 , 1 9 9 5
T O : B u d g e t a n d F i n a n c e C o m m i t t e e
F R O M : H i d e o S u g i t a , A s s i s t a n t D i r e c t o r o f P l a n n i n g a n d P r o g r a m m i n g
T H R O U G H : J a c k R e a g a n , E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r
S U B J E C T : P o t e n t i a l S u p p l e m e n t a l F u n d s f o r t h e I n l a n d E m p i r e I n t e l l i g e n t T r a n s p o r t a t i o n S y s t e m s
S t r a t e g i c P l a n n i n g P r o j e c t
A t t a c h e d i s a d r a f t l e t t e r f r o m C a l t r a n ' s N e w T e c h n o l o g y a n d R e s e a r c h P r o g r a m w h i c h i d e n t i f i e s t h e
a v a i l a b i l i t y o f a d d i t i o n a l p l a n n i n g f u n d s w h i c h m a y b e a p p l i e d t o t h e I n l a n d E m p i r e I n t e l l i g e n t
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n S y s t e m s ( I T S ) S t r a t e g i c P l a n n i n g p r o j e c t . T h e I n l a n d E m p i r e I T S p r o j e c t i s c u r r e n t l y
f u n d e d w i t h $ 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 o f f e d e r a l f u n d s , $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 o f S t a t e f u n d s , a n d $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 e a c h f r o m S A N B A G
a n d R C T C f o r a t o t a l o f $ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 .
D u e t o a l o w e r t h a n a n t i c i p a t e d b i d o n a n I T S p l a n n i n g p r o j e c t m a n a g e d b y C a l t r a n s , t h e r e m a y b e a n
a d d i t i o n a l $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 ( $ 4 0 , 0 0 0 f e d e r a l / 5 1 0 , 0 0 0 s t a t e ) w h i c h c a n b e a p p l i e d t o t h e I n l a n d E m p i r e
p l a n n i n g p r o j e c t . A c c o r d i n g t o t h e d r a f t l e t t e r , a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t h e f u n d s m u s t o c c u r b y D e c e m b e r
1 9 9 5 .
S t a f f h a s h a d d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h S A N B A G a n d C a l t r a n s D i s t r i c t 0 8 s t a f f r e g a r d i n g t h e p o s s i b l e u s e o f
t h e s e f u n d s . S t a f f c o n c u r s t h a t i f t h e a d d i t i o n a l f u n d s a r e m a d e a v a i l a b l e , w e w i l l d e s i g n a m o r e
s i g n i f i c a n t p u b l i c o u t r e a c h p r o g r a m t o s u p p o r t t h e I n l a n d E m p i r e I T S p r o j e c t . O n e o f t h e m o r e
c h a l l e n g i n g f a c t o r s f a c i n g I T S i s g e t t i n g t h e p u b l i c a n d s t a k e h o l d e r s i n v o l v e d i n t h e p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s .
D e v e l o p m e n t o f a n e f f e c t i v e o u t r e a c h p r o g r a m w o u l d h o p e f u l l y s t i m u l a t e i n t e r e s t a n d i n v o l v e m e n t .
A c c o r d i n g t o t h e d r a f t l e t t e r t h e f u n d s a r e a l r e a d y m a t c h e d a n d i t a p p e a r s t h a t a l o c a l 1 0 % m a t c h w i l l
n o t b e r e q u i r e d .
T h i s i s s u e w i l l b e d i s c u s s e d a t t h e N o v e m b e r 7 , 1 9 9 5 S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a P r i o r i t y C o r r i d o r m e e t i n g .
S t a f f w i l l u p d a t e t h e C o m m i s s i o n a t t h e N o v e m b e r 8 , 1 9 9 5 R C T C m e e t i n g s h o u l d t h e r e b e a n y c h a n g e
i n d i r e c t i o n o n t h i s i t e m .
P l e a s e n o t e t h a t s h o u l d f u n d s b e s e c u r e d , s t a f f w i l l d e v e l o p a n o u t r e a c h p r o g r a m a n d b r i n g i t b a c k t o
t h e C o m m i s s i o n f o r a p p r o v a l .
S T A F F R E C O M M E N D A T I O N :
T h a t t h e C o m m i s s i o n a u t h o r i z e s t a f f t o s e c u r e u p t o $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 o f a d d i t i o n a l f e d e r a l a n d s t a t e f u n d s t o
s u p p l e m e n t t h e I n l a n d E m p i r e I T S S t r a t e g i c P l a n n i n g p r o j e c t .
: j w
A t t a c h m e n t s
F : \ U S E R S \ P R E P R I N T \ N O V . 9 5 \ I T S F U N D I . H S
Cow
se Minimum the Project Will Affect
(In Mu1tl-County Regions (filly):
Sh are of
Comity Project's Cost
Flld,111
7Ta lyrci
AB 973
Proposition 116
FCR/SIIA
FTA Section 3
FTA Section 9
TDA STA
Local Sales Tax
Private
Other Prenert� /Alize ts
Ta al
Tim FY 1994.95
Fording Received
ja for Years
$17. 48
$36.00
$53. 48
•
Pedley Station Expansi on
Priqedm Name
#1
Project's Regional Pri ority Ranking
Within the Co unty
Exhibit 2
STATE TRANSIT CAPIT AL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
REGI ONAL GUIDEWAY FINANCIAL PLAN
(5 In Millions)
FY 1995-96
Funding Received
Ip Current Yew"
FY 1996-97
Funding Needed
j/ Next Fiscal Years"
•
Riv . Cnty . T ra nsp.-Corn
rimming Agency
Pr oj ect's Regional Priority Ranking
Estimated Funds Needed in S ubseque nt
Fiscal Years to plete the Prpject
2nd 3rd 4th • 5th
Y� YSIE AK I TOTAL
$0 .5 $3.3
$21 .28
$36.00
$57.28
Annual inflation rate (if any) assumed forarch year in the plan•aaaaaaa*a aaaaa aaaaaaaa aa aaaa ee aaea aaaaaa
aaaaaaaa aaaaaaa•aaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaa aa aaaa•aaa aaaaaa aa aaaaiaTiaaaa aaaaaa aaaaaaaa•a aa*aNiaaa*aa a••aaaaaaa•a aa*.ax • ***• aaaiai* *aaaaa ******•
i�a aaa a
include all finds received prior to the start of the current state fiscal year.
•• , Make yourbest estimate of the hods you expect to receive this
•'• The TPAD✓PCI dollars hi this oohts>n are thoseyregrate fiscal finer
aallocation estate thu ds fn the ttetet slate fiscal .app oilng mows for a on to compete in the California Transportation Commission's Tra nsit Capital
astcmber the state guideway finds within one project in this column, the region has determined that t!applicant Impr ovement (a po=les fen •
programmed anss ithhi onleyaar of the Commission allocation and that the FTA Section 3 and/or 9.7D A/STA and local sales Ihrrds as appmpriat e. ha ve best
,car
�' ,_Moths a contract to perches. � le earn* by as allocation reciPknt, wheth er or not the recipient has actually disbursed 011/11110.
"
"
R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
D A T E : N o v e m b e r 1 , 1 9 9 5
T O : B u d g e t a n d F i n a n c e C o m m i t t e e
F R O M : T o m H o r k a n , B e c h t e l P r o j e c t M a n a g e r
S u s a n C o r n e l i s o n , S e n i o r S t a f f A n a l y s t
T H R O U G H : J a c k R e a g a n , E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r
S U B J E C T : F i n a n c i a l P l a n o f R i v e r s i d e - D o w n t o w n S t a t i o n E x p a n s i o n
I n t r o d u c t i o n :
I n 1 9 9 3 R C T C c o m p l e t e d P h a s e I o f t h e R i v e r s i d e - D o w n t o w n C o m m u t e r R a i l S t a t i o n
t o s e r v e t h e M e t r o l i n k R i v e r s i d e t o L o s A n g e l e s s e r v i c e o n t h e U n i o n P a c i f i c L i n e . T h e
c o m m u t e r r a i l p l a t f o r m w a s p l a c e d w e s t o f t h e e x i s t i n g S a n t a F e m a i n t r a c k s , a n d a
f o r m e r U n i o n P a c i f i c l i n e w a s r e c o n s t r u c t e d t o p r o v i d e a c c e s s f r o m t h e p l a t f o r m t o t h e
U n i o n P a c i f i c m a i n t r a c k s .
A l s o i n 1 9 9 3 , R C T C e n t e r e d i n t o a L e t t e r A g r e e m e n t w i t h S a n t a F e t h a t w o u l d a l l o w
i n i t i a l c o m m u t e r r a i l s e r v i c e o n t h e S a n t a F e ' s S a n B e r n a r d i n o S u b d i v i s i o n t o m a k e u s e
o f t h e e x i s t i n g p l a t f o r m c o n s t r u c t e d f o r t h e U n i o n P a c i f i c M e t r o l i n k s e r v i c e . T h i s
L e t t e r A g r e e m e n t a m e n d e d t h e a g r e e m e n t t h a t R C T C a n d t h e o t h e r m e m b e r s o f
S C R R A h a d e n t e r e d i n t o w i t h S a n t a F e t h a t r e q u i r e d a e a s t e r n p l a t f o r m t o b e
c o n s t r u c t e d f o r i n i t i a l s e r v i c e a t t h e R i v e r s i d e - D o w n t o w n s t a t i o n .
A s t h e C o m m i s s i o n i s a w a r e , b o t h U n i o n P a c i f i c a n d S a n t a F e , h a v e h a d c o n c e r n s
w i t h t h e c o m b i n e d o p e r a t i o n o f f r e i g h t a n d c o m m u t e r r a i l t h r o u g h t h e R i v e r s i d e -
D o w n t o w n s t a t i o n a r e a . P r e v i o u s p r e s e n t a t i o n s h a v e b e e n m a d e t o t h e C o m m i s s i o n
r e g a r d i n g t h e p o t e n t i a l c o n f l i c t s a n d t h e p r o p o s e d s o l u t i o n o f c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a n
a d d i t i o n a l p l a t f o r m o n t h e e a s t s i d e o f t h e S a n t a F e m a i n t r a c k s a t t h e R i v e r s i d e -
D o w n t o w n S t a t i o n . T h i s a d d i t i o n a l p l a t f o r m w o u l d s e p a r a t e t h e M e t r o l i n k s e r v i c e o n
t h e S a n t a F e a n d U n i o n P a c i f i c l i n e s a n d a v o i d c r o s s i n g c o n f l i c t s b e t w e e n S a n t a F e
b o u n d M e t r o l i n k t r a i n s a n d U n i o n P a c i f i c f r e i g h t t r a i n s .
A s t u d y w a s p r e p a r e d b y M i r a l l e s a n d A s s o c i a t e s e x a m i n i n g v a r i o u s o p t i o n s f o r
l o c a t i n g a n e a s t s i d e p l a t f o r m a n d t h e c o s t o f a l l t h e e l e m e n t s n e e d e d t o c o m p l e t e t h e
R i v e r s i d e - D o w n t o w n S t a t i o n . T h e C o m m i s s i o n i d e n t i f i e d a p r e f e r r e d a l t e r n a t i v e w i t h
e l e m e n t s w h i c h i n c l u d e e x p a n d i n g t h e e x i s t i n g p a r k i n g l o t f o r m o r e p a r k i n g , a d d i t i o n a l
t r a i n s t o r a g e , c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a n e w p l a t f o r m t o p r o v i d e s e r v i c e t o S a n t a F e M e t r o l i n k
F : \ U S E R S \ P R E P R I N T \ N 0 V . 9 5 \ F I N P L N - R I V . T H
Page 2
trains, and construction of a new pedestrian bridge connecting the two platforms.
Staff has analyzed the costs and available sources of revenue (Prop. 108 and 116
funds, TCI, Santa Fe, and Union Pacific) to prepare a financial plan to complete the
Riverside -Downtown Station at a cost no greater to RCTC than all improvements that
would otherwise be required to run service continually from the west side platform.
Cost of Needed Improvements:
The Miralles study provided costs for various options and particular elements of
expanding the Riverside -Downtown Station. Some elements of the expansion have
already gone forward. Other elements (an eastside station track) may not be required
until the future, but need to be planned and provided for at this time. Staff believes
the station expansion at this time must provide for the following items.
1. (In progress) Expand Metrolink parking lot capacity - Work is essentially
complete on the parking lot expansion to add approximately 350 spaces. The
cost of the parking lot expansion including design is: $370,000.
2. (In progress) Extend westside passenger rail station track northward to provide
for train storage for one additional Metrolink train. This track extension is
necessary to start Metrolink service into Orange County out of the existing
west side station. The track extension allows all three Union Pacific Metrolink
trains to be stored on one track and leave the other track clear for operations.
The cost of the additional track extension and other facilities for overnight
storage is approximately: $513,000.
3. Construct a 700 foot commuter rail platform on the east side of the Santa Fe
main tracks directly across from the existing platform. The platform would be
located on top of the Riverside irrigation canal and in front of the former FMC
building, now owned by Royal Citrus, Inc. The cost of the platform is
estimated to be: $850,000.
4. Construct a pedestrian overhead bridge between the two platforms to allow
commuters to access both platforms from the west side parking lots. The
estimated cost of the pedestrian bridge is: $1,266,000.
5. Construct a train storage facility on property currently owned by Santa Fe
between 3rd and 7th Streets in Riverside on the east side of the Santa Fe main
tracks. The storage facility will hold the Santa Fe Metrolink trains. The facility
would initially be constructed to hold four trains, with expansion capabilities
to add two additional trains. The storage facility takes the place of a facility
that would be required to be constructed at Highgrove if all service is
maintained on the west side. The cost of the facility, with Santa Fe providing
approximately 2,000 feet of track, is estimated to be: $1,843,450.
F:\USERS\PREPRINT\NOV.95\FINPLN-RIV.TH
"
P a g e 3
"
"
"
6 . A d d i t i o n a l i m p r o v e m e n t s a n d a c q u i s i t i o n s i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e a b o v e , w h i c h
a f t e r t h e r e q u i r e d a p p r a i s a l s , a r e e s t i m a t e d a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y : $ 7 3 5 , 0 0 0 .
T h e t o t a l c o s t o f t h e i m p r o v e m e n t s i s e s t i m a t e d t o b e $ 5 , 5 7 9 , 3 2 4 , i n c l u d i n g S a n t a
F e ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n p r o v i d i n g m a t e r i a l f o r t h e t r a i n s t o r a g e f a c i l i t y .
I d e n t i f i e d R e s o u r c e s :
S e v e r a l s o u r c e s o f f u n d s a r e i d e n t i f i e d t o c o m p l e t e t h e s t a t i o n a n d s t o r a g e e x p a n s i o n :
A . T h e n e a r l y c o m p l e t e d e x p a n s i o n o f t h e R i v e r s i d e - D o w n t o w n p a r k i n g l o t
( e l e m e n t # 1 , p r e v i o u s p a g e ) h a s b e e n f u n d e d b y t h e r e m a i n d e r o f f u n d s i n t h e
o r i g i n a l I C I g r a n t a l l o c a t i o n f o r t h e d o w n t o w n s t a t i o n .
B . T h e e x t e n s i o n o f t h e e x i s t i n g p a s s e n g e r r a i l t r a c k t o t h e n o r t h f o r s t o r i n g o n e
a d d i t i o n a l U n i o n P a c i f i c M e t r o l i n k t r a i n ( e l e m e n t # 2 ) i s f u n d e d b y t h e c u r r e n t
P r o p . 1 0 8 / T C I a l l o c a t i o n f o r t r a c k w o r k .
C . R C T C w a s a w a r d e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y $ 2 , 8 0 0 , 0 0 0 o f P r o p o s i t i o n 1 0 8 f u n d s f o r
a t r a i n s t o r a g e f a c i l i t y a t H i g h g r o v e . T h e e a s t s i d e e x p a n s i o n o f t h e R i v e r s i d e -
D o w n t o w n S t a t i o n a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e e a s t s i d e s t o r a g e f a c i l i t y n e g a t e s t h e
n e e d f o r t h e H i g h g r o v e l a y o v e r f a c i l i t y . T h o s e f u n d s c o u l d b e t r a n s f e r r e d t o
s t a t i o n e x p a n s i o n a n d s t o r a g e a t R i v e r s i d e ( e l e m e n t s # 3 , # 4 & # 5 ) .
D . T h e U n i o n P a c i f i c h a s p l e d g e d $ 1 , 5 4 2 , 0 0 0 f o r t h e s t a t i o n e x p a n s i o n e f f o r t i n
a n a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e S a n t a F e ( a p p l i c a b l e t o e l e m e n t s # 3 , # 4 & # 6 ) .
E . A d d i t i o n a l f u n d i n g ( f o r e l e m e n t # 6 , o r p o r t i o n s o f e l e m e n t s # 3 , # 4 o r # 5 w h i c h
m a y b e i n e l i g i b l e f o r o t h e r i d e n t i f i e d s o u r c e s ) c o u l d b e o b t a i n e d f r o m ' t h e
$ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 r e m a i n i n g f o r d o w n t o w n s t a t i o n r i g h t - o f - w a y a c q u i s i t i o n a n d f r o m
s a v i n g s r e a l i z e d i n a n o t h e r P r o p . 1 0 8 / T C I a l l o c a t i o n f o r s t a t i o n s a n d t r a c k w o r k .
A s p r e a d s h e e t s h o w i n g p r o j e c t e s t i m a t e s i n r e l a t i o n t o e l i g i b l e f u n d i n g s o u r c e s w i l l b e
p r o v i d e d f o r r e v i e w a t t h e m e e t i n g .
C o n c l u s i o n :
F u n d s a p p e a r a v a i l a b l e t o c o m p l e t e t h e n e x t p h a s e o f t h e R i v e r s i d e - D o w n t o w n
C o m m u t e r R a i l S t a t i o n a n d s t o r a g e f a c i l i t y .
S T A F F R E C O M M E N D A T I O N :
T h a t t h e C o m m i s s i o n a p p r o v e t h e f i n a n c i a l p l a n f o r t h e p r e v i o u s l y - i d e n t i f i e d p r e f e r r e d
a l t e r n a t i v e t o c o n s t r u c t e x p a n d e d t r a i n s t o r a g e f a c i l i t i e s a n d i m p r o v e m e n t s t o t h e
R i v e r s i d e - D o w n t o w n c o m m u t e r r a i l s t a t i o n .
F : \ U S E R S \ P R E P R I N T N O V . 9 5 \ F I N P L N - R I V . T H
"
"
R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
D A T E : N o v e m b e r 1 , 1 9 9 5
T O : B u d g e t a n d F i n a n c e C o m m i t t e e
F R O M : H i d e o S u g i t a , A s s i s t a n t D i r e c t o r o f P l a n n i n g & P r o g r a m m i n g
C l a u d i a C h a s e , P r o p e r t y T e c h n i c i a n
T H R O U G H : J a c k R e a g a n , E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r
S U B J E C T : 2 4 - H o u r S e c u r i t y a t L a S i e r r a & W e s t C o r o n a S t a t i o n s
W i t h i n o n e w e e k o f t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f c o n s t r u c t i o n a t t h e L a S i e r r a R a i l S t a t i o n , w e
b e g a n e x p e r i e n c i n g a c t s o f v a n d a l i s m . T h e T i c k e t V e n d i n g M a c h i n e w a s s e v e r e l y
d a m a g e d t o t h e e x t e n t o f $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 f o r r e p a i r s . T h e r e w a s a l s o d e s t r u c t i o n o f
i r r i g a t i o n e q u i p m e n t a n d t h e f t o f l a n d s c a p i n g m a t e r i a l s , p l a n t s , s c r u b s a n d g r o u n d
c o v e r . T h e W e s t C o r o n a S t a t i o n h a s a l s o h a d l a n d s c a p e m a t e r i a l s , a s w e l l a s l i g h t i n g
f i x t u r e s , r e m o v e d f r o m t h e p r o p e r t y .
T h e S e c u r i t y G u a r d S e r v i c e A g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n R C T C a n d t h e S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a
R e g i o n a l R a i l A u t h o r i t y p r o v i d e s g u a r d s a t b o t h s t a t i o n s b e t w e e n 5 : 3 0 a . m . u n t i l 6 . 3 0
p . m . D u e t o t h e r e c e n t v a n d a l i s m , s t a f f h a s i n i t i a t e d a t w o - w e e k r e q u e s t o f 2 4 - h o u r ,
r o u n d t h e c l o c k s e c u r i t y a t b o t h t h e L a S i e r r a a n d W e s t C o r o n a R a i l S t a t i o n s . T h i s
u r g e n t r e q u e s t w a s a u t h o r i z e d u n d e r t h e E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r ' s s i n g l e s i g n a t u r e
a u t h o r i t y .
W h i l e o t h e r m e t h o d s o f s e c u r i n g t h e s i t e a r e e x a m i n e d , s t a f f f e e l s i t n e c e s s a r y t o
c o n t i n u e t h e 2 4 - h o u r s e c u r i t y f o r a p e r i o d o f 9 0 d a y s . T h e c o s t o f o n e s e c u r i t y
o f f i c e r , a r m e d i s $ 1 0 . 2 4 p e r h o u r , w i t h a n a d d i t i o n a l s e c u r i t y s u p e r v i s o r c o s t o f $ 1 . 0 0
p e r h o u r . T h e t o t a l a d d i t i o n a l c o s t f o r t h e a d d e d h o u r s o f s e c u r i t y f o r a 9 0 d a y p e r i o d
a t t h e t w o s t a t i o n s i s $ 2 7 , 7 8 5 . 2 8 . T h i s a d d i t i o n a l c o s t w a s n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e
o p e r a t i o n a l b u d g e t , t h e r e f o r e i f n e e d e d t h e c o s t w i l l b e s h a r e d b y t h e r a i l l e a s e
r e v e n u e s . S t a f f w i l l k e e p y o u a p p r i s e d o f s e c u r i t y i s s u e s r e l a t e d t o t h e s t a t i o n s .
S T A F F R E C O M M E N D A T I O N :
T h a t t h e C o m m i s s i o n a p p r o v e t e m p o r a r y , 2 4 - h o u r s e c u r i t y s e r v i c e a t b o t h t h e L a
S i e r r a a n d W e s t C o r o n a R a i l S t a t i o n s .
. J w